Gujarat High Court
M/S Ashapuri Engineering Works Through ... vs Bosco India on 10 July, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9325/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9325 of 2025
=============================================
M/S ASHAPURI ENGINEERING WORKS THROUGH OWNER AND
PROPRIETOR & ANR.
Versus
BOSCO INDIA
=============================================
Appearance:
MR JAY SNEHAL SHAH(13391) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused
the record.
2. The present petition invoking the extraordinary
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227
of the Constitution of India is directed against the order
dated 18.04.2025 passed by the Judge, Commercial
Court and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in
Commercial Execution Petition No.18 of 2023.
3. By means of the order impugned, the application filed by
the judgement debtor/petitioner herein under Order 21
Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has
been rejected with the observation that their exists a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9325/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
money decree dated 07.03.2023. The judgment debtor
had filed an appeal along with an application condoning
delay of 186 days before the appellate court, which has
been rejected vide order dated 01.04.2024 leading to the
dismissal of the appeal. Special Civil Application No.
10174 of 2024 has been filed before this Court
challenging the order of rejection of the application
seeking for condonation of delay in filing appeal, which
in turn has been dismissed vide judgment and order
dated 12.07.2024 passed by this Court. The Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No. 21592 of 2024 challenging the
order passed by this Court has also been dismissed on
04.10.2024. The result is that the judgment and decree
dated 07.03.2023 passed against the petitioners herein
has attained finality.
4. The contention of the learned advocate for the
petitioners that the judgement debtor has filed a suit for
recovery against the decree holder on 08.05.2025 and an
application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to seek recall of
the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2023 and hence,
the provisions of Order 21 Rule 29 would be attracted, is
found to be misconceived. Suffice it to say that once the
judgment and decree dated 07.03.2023 has attained
finality, the executing court has no power to stay the
execution on the premise that a subsequent suit has
been filed independently by the judgment debtor seeking
for recovery of certain amount against the decree
holder, after the decree for recovery was passed against
him. The bare reading of Order 21 Rule 29 CPC shows
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9325/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
that in case such a suit is pending at the time of filing of
the execution application, the executing court could
have formed an opinion in the facts and circumstances of
a particular case to stay the execution. In the instant
case, even the execution application has been filed in the
year 2023.
5. For the aforesaid, there is no error in the order passed
by the executing court. The present petition stands
dismissed accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
