Ashish Mishra vs Pradeep Agrawal
2023 Latest Caselaw 654 Chatt

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 654 Chatt
Judgement Date : 1 February, 2023

Chattisgarh High Court

Ashish Mishra vs Pradeep Agrawal on 1 February, 2023

                                    1

                                                                        NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             MCC No. 1 of 2023

    Ashish Mishra S/o. S. N. Mishra, Aged About 49 Years R/o 481, Ward
     No. 41 Behind Lucky Bharat Garage, Yadav Gali, Chuchuhiyapara
     Shanker Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ---- Applicant

                                 Versus

    Pradeep Agrawal S/o Late Satyanarayan Agrawal, R/o Flat No. 304,
     3rd Floor, Mahima Vihar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
     Presently Residing At Mahesh Colony, Gudiyari Raipur, District
     Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                         ---- Respondents

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 01.02.2023

1. The present MCC has been registered on a PUD received from the 6 th

Additional District Judge, Bilaspur dated 12.12.2022. Vide the said

PUD the 6th Additional District Judge has sought for further four

months extension of time for conclusion of the execution Case

No.19B/2019.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present MCC are that a civil

suit was filed by one Ashish Mishra against the judgment-debtor

namely Pradeep Agrawal vide Civil Suit No.55-B of 2015. The said

civil suit stood decided in favour of the decree-holder Ashish Mishra

on 09.07.2019 and the execution proceedings were initiated on

29.07.2019.

3. In terms of the judgment and decree, the judgment - debtor Pradeep

Agrawal was required to pay the decree-holder an amount of

Rs.13,00,000/- with 6% interest from the date of filing of the suit. In

the course of execution proceedings, the decree-holder filed a writ

petition i.e. WP227 No. 253/2020 seeking for necessary police

assistance for the execution of the warrant of arrest issued against

the judgment-debtor. The said writ petition got disposed of on

04.03.2020 wherein in it was observed as under:

"3. After considering the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, I am of this view that if the circumstances so permit then the Court has the inherent power to order for police assistance in execution of warrant of arrest in civil cases. Therefore, the petition is disposed off and the application filed by the petitioner for seeking police help is allowed. Learned Court below is directed to provide the police help for execution of warrant of arrest in accordance with the rules that are provided in Civil Court rules and Orders."

4. Thereafter, two more MCC were filed; One was MCC No. 390/2020

seeking for modification of the earlier order passed in WP227 No.

253/2020 for prescribing certain time limit. The High Court while

allowing the said MCC on 14.08.2020 prescribed six months time for

the Execution Court to take necessary steps for the execution

proceedings to be concluded. The execution proceedings could not

be concluded. Another MCC that was filed i.e. MCC No. 298/2022

again came up for hearing on 13.06.2022. This Court again granted a

further extension of six months time for conclusion of the execution

proceedings. Yet the Execution Court could not conclude the

proceedings.

5. Subsequently, there was yet another MCC i.e. MCC No. 636/2022

that was filed by the decree-holder. The High Court in the said MCC

made the following observations:

"7. The second extension of time sought for by the Applicant is totally uncalled for. The execution proceedings are not getting deferred or delayed because of the fault of the Applicant. If, at all, there was any extension of time required, it was for the concerned Additional District Judge considering the execution case to have made an appropriate correspondence seeking for extension of time.

8. For the said reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present MCC, leaving it open for the concerned Additional District Judge to take appropriate steps showing the bona fides for not concluding the execution proceedings within the stipulated period.

9. The original order passed by the Writ Court was passed on 04.03.2020. The execution proceedings were in fact initiated as early as in 2015 and in between seven years' time has lapsed. The Execution Court should not reflect the helplessness in getting the Order executed. The Court while disposing of the said MCC had made it very clear that all endevours should be made for getting the Order executed at the earliest."

6. The plain reading of the contents of the PUD that has now been sent

by the concerned Additional District Judge it reflects that the judgment

debtor has been put to civil imprisonment for the maximum period

permissible under Civil Procedure Code. The judgment debtor has

also stated before the Court that he does not have any movable or

immovable property in his name which could have been attached for

the purpose of execution or realization of decretal amount. The

decree holder has also not been in a position to produce details of

any movable or immovable property in the name of the judgment

debtor.

7. Given the aforesaid factual matrix as is reflected from the contents of

the PUD, this Court is not inclined to grant any further extension of