Full Text
4th September, 2014 SHRI SATYA DEV AND ANR. ......Petitioners
Through: Ms. Neha Singh, proxy counsel.
Through: None.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition pending since the year 2000. It is now over around 14 years. This petition was dismissed in default on 17.7.2002 whereafter it was restored and listed in the category of ‘Regular Matters’ on 4.10.2002. When no one appeared for the petitioner, court notice was issued vide order dated 23.1.2013. Petitioners thereafter appeared through their Advocate. Today, on the first call pass over was requested, as counsel was not available, which was granted, however, even on the second call, counsel 2014:DHC:4410 C.R.P No.640/2000 for the petitioner does not appear. Considering the facts of this case, I am not inclined to grant a second pass over or an adjournment.
2. The challenge by means of this petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned order of the executing court dated 5.5.2000 by which the executing court has issued warrants of attachment against the salary of the judgment debtor no.2. The admitted position is that an exparte Award was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner did not comply with the exparte Award and which was passed because the loan taken with respect to purchase of a refrigerator was not repaid. Petitioners are the borrower and guarantor.
3. In view of the fact that Award has become final, and liability under the same has not been discharged, hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order of the executing court dated 5.5.2000 issuing warrants of attachment with respect to the salary of the judgment debtor no.2.
4. Dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SEPTEMBER 04, 2014 Ne