GURMUKH SINGH Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite service, none has come present on behalf of the sole respondent and as such, it is ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

(2.) By way of instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to order dated 30.4.2019, passed by learned Additional District JudgeI, Mandi, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.37/2019, whereby an appeal having been filed by the petitioner ( hereinafter referred to as the 'JD'), laying therein challenge to order dated 6.8.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.3, Mandi, H.P., in Execution Petition No.8/13/11, came to be dismissed.

(3.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that respondent-Bank after having obtained decree for recovery of Rs.1,31,255/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum with monthly rests, filed an Execution Petition before the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) Court No.3, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. Initially, petitioner/JD put in appearance before the Executing Court, but thereafter since failed to appear in the Court despite repeated opportunities, he came to be proceeded against ex-parte. With a view to implement the judgment and decree sought to be executed in the execution proceedings, trial Court issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner/JD while exercising power under Order XXI Rule 11, 11-A, 30 etc., of CPC.