Gujarat High Court
Delta Rubber And Plastic Products vs Ahmedabad Mercantile Co Op Bank Ltd on 24 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5138 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
DELTA RUBBER AND PLASTIC PRODUCTS & ANR.
Versus
AHMEDABAD MERCANTILE CO OP BANK LTD. & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UDAY R BHATT(192) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
DR.ABHISST K THAKER(7010) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 24/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt would request this
Court to allow the petitioners to delete respondent No. 2,
inadvertently joined in the proceeding. Learned Advocate Mr.
Hamesh C. Naidu for respondent No. 2 has no objection for
such request of the petitioners.
2. Permission as sought for is granted. Respondent No. 2 herein
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
stands deleted from the array of parties in the matter.
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr. Ishan
Rajdev waives service of notice of admission for respondent
No. 1. With the consent of parties, matter is taken up for
hearing.
4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Uday R. Bhatt for the petitioners
and learned Advocate Mr. Ishan Rajdev for respondent No. 1.
5. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Admit this petition and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in
nature of appropriate writ and call for the records and proceedings of the
execution proceedings being Darkhast no 296 of 2002 from the
executing forum being the Ahmedabad City Civil Court and quash and
set aside the order below exhibit no 44 dated 10-5-2013 and further
allow the same and further hold and declare that the orders passed by
the executing forum and the award / decree passed by the appellate
forum in appeal being Appeal No.426/99 decided on 30.10.2000 by the
Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, Ahmedabad are without any
jurisdiction and are nullity etc by calling for the records and proceedings
and quash and set aside the same and also call for the records and
proceedings of Lavad Suit No.2188/95 dismissed on 1.7.1999 from the
board of nominees Ahmedabad and holds that all fundamental rights of
the petitioners are violated.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
(b) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the
Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the darkhast proceedings being
Darkhast no 296 of 2002 pending before the executing forum being the
Ahmedabad City Civil Court.
(c) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (B) be granted.
(d) Pass any other and further order or orders as may be deemed fit, just
and necessary by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
(e) Costs of this petition be awarded."
6. The short question falls for consideration of this Court as to
whether any jurisdictional error was committed by the
Executing Court while passing the impugned order dated 10th
May 2013, when it rejected the impugned application filed by
the petitioner herein below Exhibit 44 in Execution Application
No. 296 of 2002?
7. As far as possible, the parties will be referred to as per their
original position before the Trial Court.
8. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE APPEAR TO BE
THAT:
8.1. The petitioner herein was defaulter of a bank loan given by
respondent No. 1 for which Lavad Suit No. 2188 of 1995 came
to be filed for recovery of Rs.7,58,133.60/ against him before
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
the Board of Nominee Court, Ahmedabad. It appears that the
said suit came to be dismissed, against which an appeal was
filed before the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal. After
hearing the parties, the Tribunal has allowed Appeal No. 426
of 1999 on 30th October 2000, thereby decreed the suit in favor
of respondent No. 1.
8.2. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the
Tribunal, respondent No. 1 had filed Execution Petition No.
296 of 2002 against the petitioner herein, who happens to be
the judgment debtor of the decree. It seems that in execution
proceeding, at initial stage, reply came to be filed below Exhibit
27 and certain documents were submitted below Exhibit 28 by
the petitioner herein.
8.3. Thereafter, about 11 years have passed, on 14th March 2013,
impugned application below Exhibit 44 in the execution
proceeding filed thereby petitioner to raise objections that the
decree passed by the Appellate Court i.e. the Co-operative
Tribunal, has no jurisdiction and as such it is nullity, thereby
not executable. Further, it is prayed in the very application that
whatever amount deposited/collected from the applicant-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
judgment debtor be refunded by respondent No. 1-Bank to
petitioner.
8.4. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court vide its impugned
order dated 10th May 2013, rejected all such objections raised
by the applicant/petitioner herein and accordingly, issued
Jangam warrant against the applicant. Hence, the present
application.
9. SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS:
9.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt would submit that respondent
No. 1 being a multistate cooperative bank registered as per the
provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984
(hereinafter referred to as "Act 1984") and as per the
notification dated 16th September 1985, issued by the authority
concern, thereby, the Board of Nominee Court has a
jurisdiction to decide the suit between the parties but as such,
the Co-operative Tribunal, before whom the appeal came to be
filed by respondent No. 1, has no jurisdiction, having not
covered under the said notification.
9.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt would submit that in the absence
of any jurisdiction so vested with the Co-operative Tribunal,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
any judgment and decree passed by such Tribunal is nullity. It
is submitted that when the decree passed by any court/tribunal
is ex facie without jurisdiction, it amounts to nullity and
thereby, not executable in law.
9.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt would further submit that the
Executing Court has not appreciated all the objections so
raised before it and according to learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt,
the order impugned is a non-speaking one and requires to be
quashed and set aside.
9.4. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt would further submit that when
decree is nullity, such issue can be raised at any point of time,
irrespective of any stage of execution proceeding. It is
respectfully submitted that even though such contentions as
regards, tribunal not having jurisdiction, not raised either
before the Tribunal or at the first instance before the Executing
Court, it can be agitated at any stage of the execution
proceeding and the same requires to be decided by the Court in
accordance with law.
9.5. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt would further submit that
considering the provisions of the Act 1984, and the Gujarat
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as
"Act 1961"), Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the lis
between the parties.
9.6. Having so submitted, learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt would
request this Court that entire execution proceeding itself is not
maintainable, inasmuch as the decree passed by the Tribunal is
without jurisdiction. So, as per Section 144 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"), whatever
amount recovered during execution on strength of decree from
the petitioner by respondent No. 1 requires to be returned back
to the petitioner.
9.7. To buttress his argument, learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt relied
upon the following two decisions:
(i) Kiran Singh V/s. Chaman Paswan reported in AIR 1954 SC 340;
(ii) The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore V/s.
The State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in 2022 (7) SCC 796.
9.8. So, making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr.
Bhatt would request this Court to allow this writ application.
10. SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 - DECREE
HOLDER:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
10.1. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Rajdev appearing for
respondent No.1 would submit that during the pendency of the
present writ application, Execution Petition No. 296 of 2002 in
question is disposed of being dismissed for default, thereby,
nothing survives in the matter. It is submitted that the
execution application itself is no longer survived before the
Trial Court, any interlocutory order passed by the Executing
Court in such execution should not be disturbed by this Court.
10.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Rajdev would further submit that there
is no substance in the argument of learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt
inasmuch as the Trial Court, while passing the impugned order,
had considered all the objections so raised by the petitioner and
the reasons which are assigned by the Trial Court while
rejecting the impugned application are just and proper. It is
submitted that when the impugned order is neither erroneous
nor perverse and not passed contrary to the provisions of law,
this Court should not interfere with such impugned order while
exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
10.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Rajdev would submit that the issue
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
germane in the matter is squarely covered by decision of this
Court in the case of Govindbhai Muljibhai Patel Versus Jt
Registrar, And Registrars Board Of Nominees, Ahmedabad
reported in 2000 (2) GLH 411. It is submitted that petitioner
being defaulter of bank loan should not allow to raise such
frivolous pleas, just to frustrate the decree at any cost.
10.4. Learned Advocate Mr. Rajdev would further submit that at the
given point of time, no issue regarding jurisdiction was raised
by the petitioner either before the Tribunal or at initial stage in
the execution proceeding. It is submitted that after about long
11 years from the execution proceeding, impugned application
came to be filed, just to avoid the dues under the decree, which
is not permissible in law. It is submitted that when the stage to
file objections got over as per Order 21, Rule 23 of CPC and
having so filed reply at the first instance in the execution
proceeding, at a belated stage, such objection cannot and
should not be entertained by the Court.
10.5. To buttress his arguments, learned Advocate Mr. Rajdev
would rely upon the following decisions:
(i) Govindbhai Muljibhai Patel V/s. Jt Registrar, And Registrars
Board Of Nominees, Ahmedabad reported in 2000 (2) GLH 411;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
(ii) Ganchi Laxmichan Ambaram V/s. Tulsidas Madhavdas reported
in 1962 GLR 103 more particularly Para-10;
(iii) Barkat Ali and another Vs. Badrinarain (Dead) by Lrs. Reported
in (2008) 4 SCC 615, more particularly Para-9 to 13.
10.6. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Rajdev
would request this Court to dismiss the present writ
application.
11. No other and further submissions are made.
12. The facts which are observed hereinabove are not in dispute. As
such, there is no substance in the present writ application,
inasmuch as the issue germane in the matter would be squarely
covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Govindbhai Muljibhai Patel (supra).
13. It experienced that time and again, on different forms and
contexts, defaulter of bank would raise different types of
objections to frustrate the money decree passed by
court/tribunal. One of such attempt done by the present
petitioners, raising an issue of jurisdiction at such belated stage
in the execution proceeding, that too, unnoticing the fact that
such issue was already resolved by this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
14. It is not in dispute that money decree was passed by the
Tribunal in the appeal filed by respondent No. 1, having failed
before the Board of Nominee in the suit of recovery filed
against the petitioner. It is unfathomable that if the Board of
Nominee constituted under the Act 1961, has jurisdiction to
decide the lis between the parties, having not disputed by
petitioners, then how the Tribunal, which is also constituted as
per Section 102 of the Act 1961, would not have jurisdiction to
decide the lis between the parties. There is no valid legally
sustainable arguments canvassed by learned advocate Mr.
Bhatt thereby, this Court can even think to accept his plea. So,
called argument that its not observed in notification of 1985
that Tribunal has also jurisdiction to decide the appeal, thus, it
has no jurisdiction, is thoroughly misconceived arguments, not
sustained in law inasmuch as when primary jurisdiction
conferred upon Board of Nominee, constituted under the Act,
1961 to try the suit filed by multi-state co-operative society,
then naturally as per provision of the Act, 1961, any appeal
remedy provided under the very Act against any order/award
passed by Board of Nominee, has a jurisdiction to decide lis
between the parties while hearing the appeal on merit .
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
15. It is well settled that appeal is a continuation of suit. The
remedy of appeal is already provided under Section 102 of the
Act 1961. The relevant provisions of the Act 1961, touches the
issue germane in the matter requires to be referred, at least for
better understanding of provisions of law by learned advocate
Mr. Bhatt, which reads as under:
"101. Decision of 'Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees-
[(1)] When a dispute is referred to the Registrar for decision, he or his nominee
or board of nominees may, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties
to the dispute to be heard, make an award on the dispute, on the expenses
incurred by the parties to the dispute in connection with the proceedings, and
the fees and expenses payable to the Registrar or his nominee or, as the case
may be, broad of nominees. Such an award shall not be invalid merely on the
ground that it was made after the expiry of the period fixed by the Registrar, for
deciding the dispute and shall, subject to appeal or review or revision, be
binding on the parties to the dispute.
[(2)] The Registrar, his nominee or, as the case may be, the board of
nominees, may before hearing the parties, require any party or parties to such
dispute to deposit such sum as may, in his or its opinion, be considered
reasonable to meet the expenses including the payment of fees, that may be
payable to the Registrar, his nominee or, as the case may be, the board of
nominees, in pursuance of the award to be made under sub-section (1).
(3) The Registrar may, having regard to the nature of the cause of action or
subject-matter of dispute, the nature of relief that may be claimed in a dispute
and such other matters, specify by a general or special order, the scale of fees
and expenses that may be made payable to him or his nominees or, as the
case may be, the board of nominees, by or under an award made under sub-
section (1).]
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
102. Appeal against decision of Registrar or his nominee or board of
nominees. Any party aggrieved by any decision of the Registrar or his
nominee or board of nominees under Section 101 or in an order passed under
Section 100 may, within two months from the date of the decision or order
appeal to the Tribunal.
103. Money how recovered.- Every order passed by the Registrar or a
person authorised by him under Section 93, or by the Registrar, his nominee
or board of nominees under Section 100 or 101, every order passed in appeal
under Section 102, every order passed by a Liquidator under Section 110,
every order passed by the State Government in appeal against orders passed
under Section 110 and every order passed in revision under Section 155, shall
if not carried out,-
(a) on a certificate signed by the Registrar or a Liquidator, be deemed
to be a decree of a Civil Court, as defined in clause (2) of Section 2 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and shall, be executed in the same
manner as a decree of such Court, or
(b) be executed according to the provisions of the Land Revenue
Code and the rules thereunder for the time being in force for the
recovery of arrears of land revenue:
Provided that, any application for the recovery in such manner of any
such sum shall be made to the Collector, and shall be accompanied by a
certificate signed by the Registrar, or by any Assistant Registrar to whom the
said power has been delegated by the Registrar. Such application shall be
made within twelve years from the date fixed in the order and if no such date is
fixed, from the date of the order."
(emphasis supplied)
16. It is not in dispute as held by this Court in the case of
Govindbhai Muljibhai Patel (supra), that in the case of a Multi-
state Cooperative Society also, the Registrar of Cooperative
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
Society, appointed under Section 3 of the Gujarat Cooperative
Societies Act, 1961 has the jurisdiction to decide the suit filed at
the instance of such Multi-state Cooperative Society. The
relevant observations made in Govindbhai Muljibhai Patel
(supra) reads as under:
"[7] So far as the question of jurisdiction is
concerned, on facts there is no dispute that
the respondent-bank is having its Registered
and Head Office at Mumbai, but Sec. 2(19) of the
Gujarat Act defines that "society" means a co-
operative society registered, or deemed to be
registered under this Act, but it is also made
clear by Sec. 160 (2) that the societies which
were registered under the Bombay Co-operative
Societies Act shall also be treated as having
been registered under the Gujarat Co-operative
Societies Act.
It is the specific case of the respondent-
Bank and is not disputed by or on behalf
of the petitioners that the respondent-
Bank was registered as a co-operative
society under the Bombay Co-operative
Societies Act, 1925, and is therefore,
also deemed to continue as a co-operative
society under the Gujarat Act.
In this view of the matter, there cannot
be any serious challenge to the
jurisdiction of the Board of Nominees in
Gujarat State, and in the facts of this
case, to the jurisdiction of particularly
the Board of Nominees at Ahmedabad to
entertain and try the suit in respect of
the transactions which took place at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
Ahmedabad as the money was advanced by the
Ahmedabad branch of the respondent-Bank to
the petitioners who are carrying their
respective businesses at Ahmedabad. In
this view of the matter, the controversy
ought to have come to an end.
[8] However, Mr. B. S. Patel, learned Counsel
for the petitioners has reiterated that because
the respondent-Bank is a Multi-State Society
only the Central Registrar under the Multi-
State Act has the jurisdiction to try and
decide the suits in question.
[9] It is not possible to accept the aforesaid
contention because the notification dated 16-9-
1985 clearly provides that the powers of the
Central Registrar under the Multi-State Act
shall be exercisable by the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies appointed under Sec. 3 of
the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961
and that the said jurisdiction is extended to
the State of Gujarat. It is necessary to note
at this stage, that Sec. 3 of the Gujarat Act
provides for appointment of Registrar of Co-
operative Societies for the State and Sec. 3(2)
provides for appointment of Additional
Registrars, Joint Registrars, Deputy Registrars
and Assistant Registrars. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec.
3 further empowers the State Government by
general or special order, to confer on a person
or persons appointed under sub-sec. (2) all or
any of the powers of the Registrar. Section
2(17) of the Gujarat Act provides that
"Registrar" means a person appointed to be the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies under this
Act and also includes an Additional or Joint
Registrar. There is nothing in the provisions
of the Multi-State Act or in the provisions of
the State Act which would prohibit the exercise
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
of the powers under Sec. 74 of the Multi-State
Act read with the aforesaid notification dated
16-9-1985 by the Nominees of the Registrar
appointed under the State Act. The prohibition
contained in Sec. 4(2) of the Multi-State Act
read with notification against delegation of
powers under Sec. 87 of the Multi-State Act to
an officer of the State Government below the rank
of Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot
and does not whittle down the power of the
Registrar to refer the disputes under Sec. 96
of the State Act to the Board of Nominees."
(emphasis supplied)
17. Thus, in view of the aforesaid provisions of law and so also the
decision of this Court in the case of Govindbhai Muljibhai Patel
(supra), there is no substance in the argument so canvassed by
learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt that the Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to decide the lis between the parties.
18. According to my view, such submission is unnoticing the
aforesaid provisions of law and unmindful of the judgment
passed by this Court in the case of Govindbhai Muljibhai Patel
(supra).
19. It seems that the attempt made by the petitioner just to delay
the execution proceeding and trying to frustrate the decree
passed the by the Tribunal. According to my view, such
attempt on the part of petitioner-judgement debtors must
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
requires to be nip in the bud.
20. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt raised another issue that despite
not raising such issue of decree in question is nullity either
before Tribunal or at first instance before Executing Court, still
it can be raised at any stage. The two decisions which were
cited by learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt in support of his above
submission would only indicate that if the decree passed by the
Court is without jurisdiction, it amounts to nullity and its
invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to
be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and
even in collateral proceeding. There is no cavil on such
principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision
of Kiran Singh (supra).
21. At the same time, such contention was though available to the
petitioner herein, having not raised at appropriate stage of
Execution proceeding, would amount to giving up such
contentions/objections, as the stage to raise such contention is
already over. At this stage, this Court also would like to
observe that as per Order 21, Rule 23 of CPC, when notice
served upon the petitioner in the execution proceeding, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
required to file all objections against the execution proceeding.
It appears that at the time of filing the reply Exhibit 27, the
contention so raised by way of the impugned application was
not raised. In view of following two cited decisions, such
contention would not be available to the petitioners to be
raised.
21.1. In the case of Ganchi Laxmichan Ambaram (supra) passed by
the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice
P.N. Bhagwati), his lordship then was, wherein held thus:
"10. Having regard to these decisions of the
Privy Council and the Supreme Court I must
refuse to follow the decision of the High Court
of Bombay in Nittasaheb Hirama v. Gurunath
Hanmant (supra) even though that is a decision
of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. I
therefore take the view that if the necessary
conditions are satisfied the principle of
constructive res judicata applies to execution
proceedings in all cases without any discretion
in the Court whether or not to apply the same
having regard to the facts and circumstances of
a particular case. This being the position it
is clear that the executing Court having made
the order on the notice under Order XXI Rule 22
directing issue of warrant for attachment it
was not open to the applicant to raise at a
subsequent stage of the proceedings any
contention against the execution of the decree.
All the contentions which the applicant wanted
to raise by filing his written statement related
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
to the execution of the decree and were
contentions which might and ought to have been
urged by him is answer to the notice under
Order XXI Rule 22. These contentions were
barred by constructive res judicata as a result
of the order made by the executing Court on the
notice under Order XXI Rule 22 and the
executing Court was therefore right in
rejecting the application of the applicant to
raise these contentions in answer to the
execution of the decree."
(emphasis supplied)
21.2. It would be proper to refer pertinent observation of the Honorable
Supreme Court in the case of Barkat Ali (supra), wherein held
thus:
"9. Order 21 Rule 22 CPC culminates in end of
one stage before attachment of the property can
take place in furtherance of execution of
decree. The proceedings under Order 21 Rule 23
can only be taken if the executing court either
finds that after issuing notice under Order 21
Rule 21 (sic Rule 22) the judgment-debtor has
not raised any objection or if such objection
has been raised, the same has been decided by
the executing court. Sub-rule (1) as well as
sub-rule (2) under Order 21 Rule 22, operate
simultaneously in the same field. Sub-rule (1)
operates when no objection is filed. Then the
court proceeds and clears the way for going to
the next stage of the proceedings, namely,
attachment of the property and if the court
finds objections on record then it decides the
objections in the first instance and thereafter
clears the way for taking up the matter for
attachment of the property if the objections
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
have been overruled.
10. Whether the order is made under sub-rule
(1) or sub-rule (2), it has the effect of
determining the preliminary stage before the
attachment process is set in motion. In this
background, the order of the court to proceed
with attachment on finding that no objection has
been raised also operates as an order deciding
the preliminary stage of the execution
proceedings and operates as if the judgment-
debtor has no objection to file. If thereafter,
the judgment-debtor wants to raise an objection
in the same proceedings in the absence of any
modification of order passed under Order 21 Rule
22 sub-rule (1) or (2), he has to take recourse
to get rid of the order by way of appeal.
12. In this background, where a judgment-debtor
has an opportunity to raise an objection which
he could have raised but failed to take and
allowed the preliminary stage to come to an end
for taking up the matter to the next stage for
attachment of property and sale of the property
under Order 21 Rule 23 which fell within the
above principle, the judgment-debtor thereafter
cannot raise such objections subsequently and
revert back to earlier stage of proceedings
unless the order resulting in termination of
preliminary stage which amounts to a decree is
appealed against and order is set aside or
modified.
13. The principles of res judicata not only
apply in respect of separate proceedings but
the general principles also apply at the
subsequent stage of the same proceedings also
and the same court is precluded to go into that
question again which has been decided or deemed
to have been decided by it at an early stage."
(emphasis supplied)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
22. According to my view, when at proper stage of Execution
proceeding, such contention as regards the decree being nullity,
being passed by a Tribunal having no jurisdiction, if not raised,
then at a belated stage that too at the stage of attachment of
the property of the judgment debtor, it could not have been
raised and it should not allow to be raised.
23. Thus, none of submissions so raised by learned advocate Mr.
Bhatt are sustainable in law, only requires rejection, which I do
so.
24. Having so observed hereinabove that there is no merit in the
objections raised by the petitioner and it could not have been
allowed to raise the stage at which it raised, in view of above, I
am in complete agreement with the view taken by the Executing
Court while rejecting the impugned application. This Court
would not like to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed
by the Executing Court while rejecting the impugned
application so filed by the petitioner.
CONCLUSION
25. In view of aforesaid reasons, this Court could hereby held that
there is no jurisdictional error committed by Executing Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5138/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
while rejecting impugned application Exhibit 44 filed by
petitioner in Execution Application No. 296 of 2000. In view of
the aforesaid observations, discussions and reasons, the present
writ application is bereft of merit, requires to be rejected.
26. This Court could have imposed heavy costs upon the petitioner
for having consumed the time of the Executing Court and so
also of this Court for filing such frivolous litigations just to
delay the execution proceeding, which to certain extent
succeeded as reported to this Court that execution is dismissed
for non-prosecution. But in past, in one of its order recorded
that the petitioner is 90 years old, this Court restrained itself
from imposing costs to an old man.
27. In view of forgoing conclusion, the present writ application is
hereby rejected. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10th
May 2013 passed by City Civil and Sessions Court, Court
No.13 below Exhibit 44 in Execution Petition - Regular
No.296 of 2002 is hereby confirmed.
28. Rule is discharged, albeit, no order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Nilesh
