Kotak Mahendra Bank Ltd vs Mahesh Kumar Patni Andanr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7295 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3909/2016
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Through Mahindra Gupta, Authorized
Signatory, 57, Sarder Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     Mahesh Kumar Patni S/o Sh. Mohan Lal, 128, Bairwa
       Mohalla, Nivariya, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk
2.     Jagdish S/o Sh. Chhitar, Bazar Mohalla, Navariya, Tehsil
       Deoli, District Tonk
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Goyal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 16/11/2022

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 &

227 of the Constitution of India against the order dt. 1.12.2015

passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tonk in

Execution Case No.22/2014 titled as Kotak Mahindra Ltd. vs.

Mahesh Kumar whereby learned Execution Court dismissed the

application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC and

also dismissed the execution proceeding.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

had filed execution of arbitration award before the District and

Sessions Judge, Tonk and said petition was transferred for

execution to Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tonk. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Tonk issued warrant of attachment in which report

came that judgment debtor had no movable and immovable

property. So, petitioner was directed by the court to furnish the

list of property of judgment debtor. Learned counsel for the

(2 of 2) [CW-3909/2016]

petitioner submits that judgment debtor had no property. So,

petitioner had filed an application before the Executing Court

under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC to send the judgment debtor in civil

prison for recovery of money. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that trial court vide order dt. 1.12.2015 wrongly

dismissed the application. So, direction be given to the trial court

to decide the execution petition as per Order 21 Rule 37 CPC.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

It is admitted position that on attachment of warrant, report

came that judgment debtor had no movable and immovable

property. It is also admitted position that petitioner had no

knowledge regarding property of judgment debtor. So, in my

considered opinion, trial court had to execute the execution

proceeding as per Order 21 Rule 37 CPC. So, order of the trial

court deserves to be set aside.

Hence, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order of

the trial court dt. 1.12.2015 is set aside and trial court is directed

to execute the execution proceeding in the light of Order 21 Rule

37 CPC.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Brijesh 38.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)