M/S K.M.S. Agencies vs M/S Glaxo Smith Kline ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2919 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 267/2022

1.     M/s K.m.s. Agencies, Through Its Proprietor Shri Vijay
       Kumar Batra, Near Gandhi Park, Tonk Road, Niwai,
       Rajasthan.
2.     Vijay Kumar Batra, Proprietor M/s Kms Agencies, Near
       Gandhi Park, Tonk Road, Niwai, Rajasthan And A-4C,
       Behind Satnam Motors, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur. At
       Present Residing At House No. 636, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Registered Office
252, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Verli, Mumbai Through Its Attorney
Holder Sushant Arora.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

06/04/2022

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred against the orders dated 23.11.2021 and

08.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast

Track No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur-II in the Execution Petition

No.1851/2017 whereby proclamation of sale under Order 21 Rule

66 CPC has been ordered.

The facts in brief are that a decree for recovery was passed

against the petitioners in a suit filed by the respondent by the

Court of learned Additional District Judge(Fast Track) No.3 vide its

judgment dated 03.01.2022. In the Civil First Appeal preferred

(2 of 3) [CW-267/2022]

thereagainst, this Court was pleased vide its order dated

15.04.2014 to stay the execution of the decree subject to the

appellant's depositing 25 per cent of the decreetal amount in the

trial Court within four weeks from the date of order with an

undertaking on oath to pay the remaining 75 per cent of the

decreetal amount with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum

from the date of order till payment. The appellants deposited the

25 per cent of the decreetal amount on 08.12.2021.

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that despite

deposition of 25 per cent of the decreetal amount on 06.12.2021,

learned Executing Court is proceeding with the execution. He,

therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the learned

Executing Court may be restrained from proceeding with the

executing proceeding.

Heard. Considered.

Interim order of this Court dated 15.04.2014 on the stay

application filed by the appellants in the Civil First Appeal staying

the execution of the decree was subject to deposition of 25 per

cent of the decreetal amount by the appellant in the trial Court

within four weeks from the date of order with an undertaking on

oath to pay remaining 75 per cent of the decreetal amount with

interest at the rate of 9 per annum. Indisputably, the appellants

failed to honor the condition and deposit the 25 per cent of the

decreetal amount alongwith an undertaking in terms of direction

of this Court dated 15.04.2014 within the stipulated period. The

undertaking was furnished by the appellants on 06.12.2021 and

25 per cent of the decreetal amount was deposited on

08.12.2021, i.e., after a period of more than seven and a half

years from the date of order dated 15.04.2014. Since, the interim

(3 of 3) [CW-267/2022]

order of this Court was conditional and on failure of the appellants

to adhere with the condition, in the considered opinion of this

Court, the learned Executing Court did not err in passing the

orders impugned and continuing with the executive proceedings.

The writ petition is wholly misconceived and is dismissed with a

cost of ₹ 2,000 which shall be deposited by the petitioners with

the Rajasthan Legal Aid Services Authority, Jaipur within a period

of four weeks from today.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

LAKSHYA SHARMA /68

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)