SHERPUR RICE MILLS Vs. PUNGRAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is one of the Judgment debtor, against the order dtd. 5/9/2023, passed by the Executing Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, Sangrur in Execution Petition No.205 of 2018 [CNR N: PBSG01-003091-2018] titled as PUNGRAIN Vs. M/s Noor Agro Industries and another', whereby objections filed by the appellant-JD under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC have been dismissed; and the Execution Petition has been disposed of by confirming the sale in favour of the auction purchaser-respondent No.3.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that JD N: 2 (appellant herein) is a partnership firm operating under the name of M/s Sherpur Rice Mills situated at Village Sherpur, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur. On 19/10/2015, said appellant had entered into a lease agreement with JD N: 1 M/s Noor Agro Industries (respondent No.2 herein), whereby the said rice mill was leased to M/s Noor Agro Industries, a proprietorship firm through its proprietor-Jiwan Kumar. On 23/10/2015, decree holder - Punjab State Grains Procurement Corporation Ltd. (PUNGRAIN') [respondent No.1 herein] and respondent No.2-M/s Noor Agro Industries-JD No.1 executed a Custom Milling Agreement for the crop year 2015-16. Respondent No.2 was required to deliver the milled rice in time and to clear all the outstanding dues, if any, towards any agency or Government and also be liable for any default. The appellant-JD No.2 furnished surety bond and affidavit to that effect. The agreement between DH and JD N: 1 i.e., respondent No.1 and 2 carried an arbitration clause. There was default on the part of JD N: 1 - respondent No.2 on account of shortage of paddy, due to which complaints were lodged against respondent No.2 for misappropriation of the paddy by respondent No.1 - DH.

(3.) It is contended by ld. counsel for the appellant/JD N: 2 that address mentioned in the execution petition filed by respondent No.1-decree-holder was incorrect. The address of rice mill was provided, which was already lying locked and sealed by DH/respondent No.1 in 2016, which fact was very much to its knowledge and also to its counsel since beginning. Execution petition was filed before the same court, where the suit filed by the appellant for de-sealing was pending. Sh. Hitesh Jindal, Advocate was contesting that suit for the decree holder and therefore, notice of execution could have been served upon the appellant either through the advocate of the appellant appearing in the Civil Court or he could have provided the addresses duly mentioned in the Aadhar card appended therein with the civil suit. Despite the fact that appellant mill was lying closed and the owners were not living at the given address, still the service was ordered at the wrong address. No order for munadi was ever issued and the service was got effected by way of publication in a hasty manner. The application moved under Order V Rule 20 CPC for substituted service was misconceived, as counsel of the decree-holder was having knowledge about the pendency of the suit filed by the appellant and he could have been served thereon.