Smt. Meena Agrawal vs H. D. B. Financial Service Limited
2021 Latest Caselaw 2247 Chatt

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                     Order Sheet

                             W.P.(227) No. 122 of 2021
1.    Smt. Meena Agrawal, W/o. Rajesh Agrawal, aged about 52 years, R/o. House
      No. 42/03 Ward No. 15, Bhagwanpur, Raghavpuri Behind Punjab Garden
      Ambikapur Surguja Chhattisgarh
2.    Rajesh Agrawal, S/o. Hukumchandra Agrawal, aged about 55 years, R/o.
      House No. 42/03 Ward No. 15, Bhagwanpur, Raghavpuri Behind Punjab
      Garden Ambikapur Surguja Chhattisgarh
                                                            ---- Petitioners

                                       Versus

H. D. B. Financial Service Limited Decree Registered Office Rahika Second Floor
Law Garden Road Navrangpur Ahmedabad 380009 Through Attorney Rahul Gupta
Tetory Manager Branch Office Manendragarh Road Ambikapur District Surguja
Chhattisgarh.

                                                                      ---- Respondent

Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Counsel for the petitioners. 09/09/2021 Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Counsel for the respondent. Heard on application for setting aside the order dated 16.08.2021, passed in violation of interim order, passed by this Court.

It is submitted that this Court has while hearing on admission of the petition has passed order dated 25.02.2021 and granted interim relief that the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner No.2 shall not be given effect to, till the next date of hearing. That order is continued by the order dated 05.04.2021. Despite the interim order present, the learned Execution Court has passed the order dated 16.08.2021 and directed issuance of warrant against the petitioner No.2, who is judgment debtor No.1 in the execution case. Therefore, appropriate order may be passed.

Counsel for the respondent opposes the application and the submission made in this respect. It is submitted that the impugned order gave fresh cause of action to the petitioners for filing separate petition, seeking relief against this order, therefore, his application can not be entertained.

Considered on the submissions.

The earlier order granting interim relief is against the same execution proceeding, in which the Execution Court has misinterpreted and passed the order later on ignoring the order passed by this Court, therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no requirement for filing separate petition for the impugned order. Order directing issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner No.2/judgment debtor No.1 is stayed in confirmation with the earlier orders passed by this Court and this stay shall remain effective till the next date of hearing.

Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply. List this case after four weeks.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

balram