Allahabad High Court
Smt. Kumud Kumar vs Bata (India) Ltd. Thru. Its ... on 18 May, 2023
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34923
Court No. - 21
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2399 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Kumud Kumar
Respondent :- Bata (India) Ltd. Thru. Its Director Haryana And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Singh Gaur,Vikrant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Ashish Raman Mishra
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner for opposite party no. 1.
Opposite No. 2 being merely proforma in nature, notices are dispensed with.
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking direction to the court concerned for expeditious disposal of Execution Case No. 24 of 2022 instituted by petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that initially the petitioner being landlord had filed S.C.C Suit No. 42 of 2010 against the answering opposite party which was allowed by means of judgment and decree dated 24.08.2021 where against S.C.C Revision No. 33 of 2021 has been filed and is pending adjudication before this Court. As on date, there is no interim order in the said proceedings. It is submitted that in the meantime, the aforesaid execution had been filed but since only general dates were being allocated, expedite order are required to be passed particularly in view of the fact that no objections under Section 47 of the Code have been filed till date. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has submitted that it is not denied that the aforesaid S.C.C Revision filed earlier is pending but has adverted to the fact that during pendency of the said revisional proceedings, possession over the suit property has already been given to the petitioner. He has also adverted to the order dated 28.09.2022 passed in the aforesaid revision indicating that an amount of Rs. 52,71,516/- after deduction of TDS was given to the petitioner and accepted by him during the revisional proceedings. It is submitted that only part of the decretal amount now remains to be satisfied relating to damages. It is submitted that since the aforesaid revision is pending consideration, the same can be decided expeditiously instead of insisting on early disposal of execution proceedings.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is evident that S.C.C proceedings were decided in favour of landlord against which revisional proceedings are pending before this Court. There does not appear to be any interim order passed in the aforesaid revisional proceedings staying the execution. It is also admitted that till date, no objections under Section 47 of the Code have been filed by the judgmemt-debtor. In such circumstances, it is but natural and logical that the execution proceedings should be finalized at the earliest. The pendency or otherwise of the revision without any interim order cannot be a reason for not taking the execution proceedings to their logical conclusion.
In view of aforesaid, the opposite party no. 2 District District Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Court No. 1 Lucknow is directed to decide the execution case no. 24 of 2022 expeditiously without granting any undue adjournment to either parties subject to any order passed by competent court having jurisdiction.
Benefit of this order shall be available only in case petitioner co-operates in early disposal of the suit.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.5.2023
DiVYa
