SITA RAM Vs. CAPTAIN DILIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the orders dated 24th March, 2011 and 3rd June, 2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Khetri and Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Khetri, respectively.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that a suit was filed by plaintiff/decree holder/respondent against petitioners/judgment debtors for the recovery of amount of Rs. 38,500/-, which came to be decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 7.4.2000. Subsequently, an application was filed by the respondent-decree holder for execution of the decree dated 7.4.2000, whereupon the warrant of attachment of the property of was issued. The respondent / decree holder filed an application before the learned court below imploring that the petitioners may be directed to produce the entire accounts with documents as regard to sole proprietary rights in immovable property, shop and Thelas. The learned executing court, having analyzed the matter ad-longum allowed the said application vide order dated 3rd June, 2006. Aggrieved with the order dated 3rd June, 2006, the petitioners-judgment debtors preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court. The learned appellate court also, vide its order dated 24th March, 2011, dismissed the appeal of the petitioners-judgment debtors and affirmed the order of the learned executing court. Thus, there has been a concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below.

(3.) IN this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the High Court had no jurisdiction after reversing the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below and remand the case to the Additional Judicial Commissioner.