PAWAN KUMAR Vs. HEM RAJ AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against two orders. Firstly, the order whereby the application for grant of stay of execution proceedings was rejected and secondly the order whereby the objections of the Petitioner/Judgment debtor have been rejected.

(2.) As far as the first order dated 18.6.2009 is concerned, it would be pertinent to mention that the judgment debtor had filed an application under Order 21 Rule 26 read with Order 41 Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure for staying the execution of the decree only on the ground that he had filed an appeal against the decree dated 25.04.2007. It is not disputed before me that the appeal has also been finally disposed of. Therefore, this part of the petition does not survive.

(3.) The next contention of Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the order dated 14.7.2009 does not decide the objections of the Judgment-debtor and that the objections could not have been decided in such a cursory manner without framing issues and giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, urges that triable issues arose and therefore, the Executing Court should have framed issues and permitted the parties to lead evidence.