Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Zojila Engineering vs Peaks Automobiles Pvt. Ltd on 2 August, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
S. No.77
Suppl.1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) No.276/2014
Zojila Engineering
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -Mr.Kacho Manzoor Ali Khan, Advocate.
Vs.
Peaks Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
...Respondent(s)
Through: -None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
Dt:02.08.2024
1) The petitioner has challenged order dated 24.05.2024 passed by
learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar in an Execution Petition filed
by the respondent against it, whereby the Collector (Dy.Commissioner)
Kargil has been directed to seize the movable/immovable property of the
petitioner to the tune of Rs.27,54,276/-.
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that prior to passing
of the impugned order of attachment no notice of Execution Petition was
served upon the petitioner and that Advocate Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat, who
is stated to have filed power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner, was
never authorised by the petitioner to represent it before the Executing
Court.
3) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of
the case.
4) It appears that in a suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner,
an ex parte judgment came to be passed by the trial Court on 07.12.2018,
whereby a decree for an amount of Rs.27,54,276/- has been passed
against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner has already filed an application for setting aside of the
said decree before the trial Court, but there is no stay of judgment and
decree dated 07.12.2018 passed by the trial Court.
5) The only ground that has been urged before this Court for impugning
order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the Executing Court is that service of
notice of the Execution Petition was not effected upon the petitioner and
that Shri Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat, Advocate, who is stated to have filed
power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner, was never authorised by the
petitioner to represent it. If it is so, the appropriate remedy available to
the petitioner is to seek review/recall of the impugned order by making an
appropriate application before the Executing Court. It would not be
appropriate for this Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution. It is a settled law that in case a party has
alternative and efficacious remedy available to it the High Court would be
reluctant to exercise its supervisory power under Article 227 of the
6) In view of the above, the petition is held to be not maintainable and
is dismissed accordingly, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the
learned Executing Court to file an application for recall/review of
impugned order, if so advised.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
02.08.2024
Sarveeda Nissar
every page at bottom left side
