Delhi High Court
Manju Verma vs Sh. Harpreet Singh & Another on 2 September, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 02.09.2011
+ CM(M) No. 1019/2011 & CM Nos.16356-57/2011
MANJU VERMA ...........Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gayan Chhabra, Advocate.
Versus
SH. HARPREET SINGH & ANOTHER ..........Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
22.07.2011 vide which the warrants of attachment had been
ordered against the immoveable assets of judgment debtors No. 4
& 5 in terms of decree dated 27.11.2006. This was in Suit
No.40/2004 titled as Harpreet Singh Vs. Baldev Raj Bhatia. It is
not in dispute that the decree dated 27.11.2006 had been passed
in favour of the decree holder; objections had been filed against
this decree by the aforenoted petitioner i.e. Smt. Manju Verma;
the said objections had been dismissed on 04.01.2011; revision
petition preferred by the petitioners in the High Court had also
been dismissed on 31.05.2011.
2 The present petition has now been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution. The grievance of the petitioner is that she had
filed a separate suit for declaration and permanent injunction
which is pending before the District Judge at Rohini Courts; this
suit had been filed pursuant to the orders of the High Court dated
14.02.2011 passed in RFA No. 96/2011 which was an appeal
against the decree dated 27.11.2006. Further contention being
that the High Court on 31.05.2011 had granted interim protection
to the petitioner up to 15.07.2011 from dispossession qua the suit
property; contention is that since along with the suit, an
application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had been filed
before the said Court where his suit is pending, no warrants of
attachment order can be passed against her till the disposal of her
application under Order 39 of the Code.
3 Record shows that the suit for declaration has been filed by
the petitioner seeking a relief to the effect that the decree dated
27.11.2006 be declared null and void; admittedly the suit was filed
in May, 2011; along with the suit, an application under Order 39
Rules 1 & 2 of the Code had also been filed. Record further shows
that no order has been passed on this application under Order 39
Rules 1 & 2 of the Code which has been taken up for hearing on
the first date of hearing which was in May, 2011. The extract of
the order-sheets of 04.07.2011, 25.07.2011 and 20.08.2011 have
also been placed on record. On all these dates, it has been noted
that no interim protection had been granted to the plaintiff on his
application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code; no statement
of the plaintiff that he is pressing his prayer under Order 39 Rules
1 & 2 of the Code has also been noted. In fact an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code had been filed by the
defendant after filing of his written statement on which arguments
have been heard and the matter had been fixed for orders.
Learned counsel for the petitioner had preferred another CM(M)
No. 983/2011 impugning this order dated 20.08.2011 by which the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code had been reserved
for orders; this petition had been disposed of on 25.08.2011.
4 The background of the case as emanating from the record
thus shows that the decree against the judgment debtor has now
become final; objections have been dismissed right up to the High
Court; his plea that warrants of attachment order against his
property should be stayed merits no consideration; submission
that a suit has admittedly been filed by him seeking a declaration
that decree dated 27.11.2006 be declared null and void on which
no interim order has been passed; record further shows that in
fact the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code was
probably not pressed and that is why it does not find mention in
the order-sheets of 04.07.2011, 25.07.2011 and 20.08.2011.
Petition is without any merit.
5 Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 02, 2011
a
