PARIJAT VYAPAR PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY VED NATH BANERJEA Vs. MAHESH KUMAR KEJRIWAL SON OF MURARI MOHAN KEJRIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel appears for the respondent no.2. By an order dated 21.01.2011, the writ petition stood dismissed against respondent nos.1 & 3.

(2.) Against order dated 01.09.2010, by which the application seeking extension of the validity of the Precept issued under section 46 CPC has been declined, the decree-holders/petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) A suit being C.S. No.323 of 2003 was instituted by Parijat Vyapar Private Limited and one of its directors namely, Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal, for a decree for Rs.14,00,000/- and mesne profit/damages @ Rs.1,75,000/- till the date of return of machines and @ Rs.70,000/- per month till Tippers, two in numbers, are returned to the plaintiff no.1 company. Several other reliefs seeking mandatory injunction, perpetual injunction, appointment of receiver, interest pendente lite etc. were also sought. The suit was decreed by judgment dated 06.08.2009 against the defendants namely, J. Khan, Surinder Kumar Singh and Bankat Garodia for Rs.14 lakhs with money decree for retention charges for machinery until realization. On 30.06.2010, on an application which was registered as Execution Case No.143 of 2010 filed by Parijat Vyapar Private Limited, a learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court passed an order of attachment in respect of immovable properties described in the Tabular Statement appended to the said application dated 22.06.2010 filed in C.S. No.323 of 2003, transfer of original certificate of the decree dated 06.08.2009 in C.S. No.323 of 2003 together with the original Precept issued in terms of prayer (b) to the Tabular Statement and a certificate of non-satisfaction of the decree dated 06.08.2009. In compliance of the said order the certified copy of decree dated 06.08.2009 together with a certificate of non-satisfaction of the said decree alongwith original Precept and a copy of order dated 30.06.2010 were transferred to the District Court, Ranchi on 22.07.2010. The court at Ranchi issued an order to the Nazir on 18.08.2010, for proclamation of attachment under the Precept. On the same day, Execution Case No.21 of 2010 was instituted by the decree-holders in the court of 1st Subordinate Judge at Ranchi for execution of decree dated 06.08.2009. The proclamation order issued by the said court was executed by the Nazir on 19.08.2010 and a report was submitted stating that two of the properties out of seven properties could not be identified, however, other five properties were attached. The petitioners have asserted that on 30.08.2010 they filed an application in Execution Case No.21 of 2010 for extension of validity of the Precept. This application was posted for hearing and final order on 31.08.2010, however, on 01.09.2010 the learned trial Judge dismissed the said application on the ground that the transferee court has no power to pass an order for execution at the instance of transferee of a decree and it is not competent to decide the issue of limitation. This is the order, which has been challenged by the petitioners in the present proceeding.