Shree Lalit Fabrics Pvt Ltd v. Shree Khodiyar Textile Mills Pvt Ltd

IN T

Shree Lalit Fabr Shree Khodiyar

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

Constitution of (Annexure P-1) the execution p Court of Bomba Brief Facts

2.

Bri respondent–plai before the Hon' said suit was de petitioner, he wa obtained by the

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

De

rics Pvt Ltd.

VERSUS Textile Mills Pvt Ltd. N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. Varun Garg, Advocate for the p -.- ANNU J. e present civil revision peti India has been filed for setting passed by the learned Civil Jud proceedings arising out of a de ay. iefly stated, the facts giving rise intiff filed a suit for recovery o 'ble High Court of Bombay aga ecreed ex parte vide judgment d as never served in the said proce e respondent–plaintiff by playing

JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-7484-2025 (O&M) cided on:-28.10.2025

....Petitioner ....Respondent EEP PANNU petitioner. ition under Article 227 of g aside the order dated 06.08.20 dge (Junior Division), Faridabad ecree passed by the Hon'ble H e to the present petition are that of ₹75,92,721/- along with inter ainst the petitioner–defendant. T dated 21.04.2014. According to eedings and the ex parte decree w g fraud upon the Hon'ble Bomb

d, in High rest was

High Court, hav cause title.

3.

Sub proceedings be execution of the debtor came to application und direction to the those relating t Section 27 of th essential for eff proceedings.

4.

However, the le application vide been passed in t and that the doc The learned cou company had g proof of such liq Accordingly, th petitioner was d the next date of ving mentioned a wrong address bsequently, the respondent–de fore the learned Civil Judge e aforesaid decree. It was at that know about the said decree. T er Order 11 Rule 4 of the Code decree holder to produce certain to the winding-up proceedings he Companies Act, 2013. It was fective adjudication of the cont reply was filed to the said earned Civil Judge (Junior Divis e impugned order dated 06.08.2 the presence of both parties by th cuments sought were within the k urt further observed that if the gone into winding up, it was in quidation so that the executabilit he application for production of directed to file documents relatin hearing.

s of the petitioner–defendant in ecree holder initiated execut (Senior Division), Faridabad, t stage that the petitioner–judgm The petitioner thereafter moved e of Civil Procedure, praying fo n documents on record, particula of the petitioner-company un s alleged that such documents w troversy involved in the execut application by the decree hold sion), Faridabad, dismissed the s 025, observing that the decree h he Hon'ble High Court of Bomb knowledge and reach of both sid judgment debtor claimed that ncumbent upon him to produce ty of the decree could be examin documents was dismissed, and g to the winding-up proceedings

tion for ment d an or a arly nder were tion der. said had bay, des. ned.

5.

Ag filed. Submissions of

6.

Lea impugned order any opportunity passing the ord Court that the incorrect, since learned court e knowledge and application was concealed mater to be set aside.

7.

the nature of the Findings of this

8.

Aft record, this Cou the learned Ex Constitution.

9.

It i behind the decr and not to reop grieved by the said order, the f learned counsel for the petitio arned counsel for the petitioner–j r has been passed in a mechani y of hearing to the decree hold der. It was argued that the obs decree was passed in the pre the decree was admittedly ex p erred in holding that the doc possession of both parties, whe to obtain copies of the records rial facts from the Bombay High tice in the matter is not required e relief sought. s Court ter hearing the learned counsel urt finds no illegality or material ecuting Court warranting inter is a settled proposition of law th ree. Its jurisdiction is confined t pen or re-examine the correctne

present revision petition has b oner –judgment debtor contended that ical manner and without afford der, as no reply was sought bef servation of the learned Execut sence of both parties is factua parte. It was further urged that cuments sought were within ereas the very purpose of filing s from the decree holder, who h h Court. Hence, the order was lia to be issued at this stage in view for the petitioner and perusing l irregularity in the order passed rference under Article 227 of hat the Executing Court cannot to executing the decree as it sta ess or validity of the decree its

een ding fore ting ally had able w of d by t go ands

Even if it is alle remedy availab passed the decre the Code of Civ Court for such p

10.

In t to the decree proceedings of t the scope of the to adjudicate up rightly held that to be under liqu relevant docume

11.

presence of both does not affect was founded on the decree hold itself. Therefore elsewhere and n

12.

and can be exer of justice. No su

eged that the decree was obtain le to the aggrieved party is to ee, seeking its setting aside by fi vil Procedure, and not to invok purposes. the present case, the petitioner– holder to produce document the company. Such an applicatio e execution proceedings and indi pon issues beyond the decree. t such directions cannot be issue uidation or winding-up, the bur ents to substantiate such claim. e observation of the Executing C h parties" appears to be an inadv the core reasoning of the order n the sound legal principle that t er to produce documents unrela e, even if the decree was ex p not before the Executing Court. e revisional jurisdiction under A cised only where there is a mani uch infirmity is made out in the i

ed ex parte or by fraud, the pro o approach the same court wh iling appropriate proceedings un ke the jurisdiction of the Execut –judgment debtor sought directi ts pertaining to the winding on, in essence, amounts to enlarg irectly inviting the Executing Co The learned Executing Court ed, and that if the petitioner clai rden lies upon him to produce Court that the decree was passed vertent expression, which, howev r. The dismissal of the applicat the Executing Court cannot com ated to the execution of the dec parte, the petitioner's remedy Article 227 is supervisory in nat ifest illegality, perversity, or fail impugned order.

oper hich nder ting ons g-up ging ourt has ims "in ver, tion mpel cree lies ture

Conclusion

13.

In present revision jurisdiction and Rule 4 CPC. Th interference. Regarding the i

14.

order dated 22.0 Division), Farid execution proce Brief facts

15.

execution petitio objections prima in the present fo out of the comp contended that but was subsequ

28.11. 2002 pas conditions. As p secured creditor statutory liabilit view of the above discussion, n petition. The learned Execu d has rightly dismissed the petiti he impugned order dated 06.08 impugned order dated 22.09.20 e petitioner–judgment debtor h

09.2025 (Annexure P-2), where dabad, dismissed the objection edings initiated by the responden e brief facts leading to the passi on filed by the decree holder, the arily on the ground that the exec form and was barred in view of pany's revival scheme sanction the judgment debtor company h uently revived under a revival sed in CA No. 944 of 2002 in CP per the said order, the company rs such as the State Bank of In ties, including workmen's dues, w

this Court finds no merit in uting Court has acted within ioner's application under Order

8.2025 (Annexure P-1) calls for 025 (Annexure P-2) has also challenged the subsequ eby the learned Civil Judge (Jun ns filed by the petitioner in nt–decree holder. ing of the said order are that in e petitioner–judgment debtor rai cution petition was not maintaina f supervening circumstances aris ned by the competent court. It w had earlier been under winding scheme sanctioned by order da P No. 85 of 2001, subject to seve y was directed to clear the dues ndia in instalments and to pay within a fixed time schedule.

its r 11 r no uent nior ised able sing was g up ated eral s of

16.

It w scheme, the cla settlement of du creditor, such a under the terms revival. It was f under the Comp existing claims creditor who fa within the presc On this basis, proceedings wa Companies Act,

17.

passed by the H the suit of the p the principal sum filing of the suit attained finality enforce it as it s

18.

record, referred in the winding-u by the Hon'ble was argued by the judgment deb aims of the unsecured creditors ues of secured creditors, and tha as the present decree holder, w s of the scheme or with leave o further contended that once a rev panies Act or under the Insolven stand to be dealt with within the ails to submit its claim to the li cribed period cannot maintain an it was submitted that the cont as contrary to the revival order , 2013, and the IBC, 2016. e decree holder, in reply, relied Hon'ble High Court of Judicature plaintiff–decree holder was decr m of ₹75,92,721/- and interest a t till the date of decision. It was y and was executable, and that t tood. e learned Civil Judge, after he to the earlier orders, including up/revival proceedings, and the High Court of Bombay. The E

btor that in terms of the said revi could be considered only after at direct execution by an unsecu was impermissible unless permit f the court/tribunal supervising vival plan or resolution is approv ncy and Bankruptcy Code, all p e framework of the scheme, and a iquidator or resolution professio n independent execution thereaf tinuation of the present execut and the statutory provisions of d upon the decree dated 21.04.20 e at Bombay in its favour, where reed for ₹2,65,06,759.71, includ at 12% per annum from the date s submitted that the said decree h the Executing Court was bound earing both sides and perusing the order dated 28.11.2002 pas judgment dated 21.04.2014 pas Executing Court observed that

ival ured tted ved pre-any onal fter. tion eby ding e of had d to ssed

Hon'ble Bomba the fact that th proceedings we records that the to proceed with such liberty and before the Hon'b

19.

winding-up, or taken into accou Consequently, th at the stage of e having jurisdict could not go b revival proceedi dismissed, and t Findings of this

20.

Hav upon perusal of reasoning adopt the revival order The record clea aware of the pe

21.04.2014. The ay High Court, while passing the he judgment debtor company w ere pending before the Official plaintiff was granted liberty by h its suit by impleading the Offi d opportunity, the defendant–jud ble Bombay High Court, which t e Executing Court thus conclud revival of the company had alr unt by the Hon'ble Bombay Hig he judgment debtor could not be execution. Once the decree had ion, the Executing Court was du ehind the decree or question it ings. The objections filed by th the execution was directed to pro s Court ving heard learned counsel for t f the record and the impugned or ted by the learned Executing Co r dated 28.11.2002 bars executio arly demonstrates that the Hon endency of revival proceedings e plaintiff therein had obtained l

e decree, was evidently conscious was under revival and that cert Liquidator, as the said order its the Punjab & Haryana High Co icial Liquidator as a party. Desp dgment debtor chose not to app thereafter decreed the suit. ded that the question of insolven ready been considered or implie gh Court while passing the decr e permitted to reopen the same is been passed by a competent co uty-bound to execute the same a ts validity on the basis of alleg he judgment debtor were, therefo oceed. the petitioner–judgment debtor a rder, this Court finds no error in ourt. The plea of the petitioner t on of the decree cannot be accept n'ble High Court of Bombay w s when it passed the decree da leave from the competent forum

s of tain self ourt pite pear ncy, edly ree. ssue ourt and ged ore, and that ted. was ated

proceed with the company's inso re-agitation befo

21.

It i decree or enterta order relied upo decree holders w civil court, esp company court. 2016, have no enforcement un Code, which is n

22.

Thu jurisdiction to p Bombay High C substance and w Conclusion

23.

Acc error in the im learned Civil Ju based on settled the said order, is

e suit against the company under olvency or revival was already c ore the Executing Court. s settled law that the Executing ain pleas which challenge its va on by the petitioner does not aut whose claims have been adjudi pecially when such decree was Moreover, the provisions of the retrospective effect so as to n nless specifically covered by a r not the case here. us, the Executing Court has proceed with the execution of Court. The objections raised by were rightly rejected. cordingly, this Court finds no il mpugned order dated 22.09.202 udge (Junior Division), Faridaba d principles of law. The revision s dismissed.

r revival. Therefore, the issue of considered and does not survive Court cannot sit in appeal over alidity or enforceability. The revi tomatically extinguish the rights icated and decreed by a compet s passed after due leave from e Insolvency and Bankruptcy Co nullify decrees passed prior to resolution plan approved under s rightly held that it posses the decree passed by the Hon' the judgment debtor are devoid llegality, infirmity, or jurisdictio 25 (Annexure P-2) passed by ad. The order is well reasoned a petition, to the extent it challen

f the for ival s of tent ode, its sses 'ble d of onal and

Regarding the

24.

Aft order dated 22 before the learn thereafter filed the purpose of s Upon considera order dated 08 attachment agai police assistanc decree.

25.

Lea the said order pr illegal orders a maintainability proceeded to iss is mechanical, w revival status, an

26.

Hav contentions adv objections of the of execution ha Executing Cour impugned order dated 08.10.20 ter the dismissal of the objection

2.09.2025 (Annexure P-2), the ned Civil Judge (Junior Divisio a list of properties belonging to satisfying the decree passed by th ation of the said list, the learned

8.10.2025 (Annexure P-3), d inst the property of the judgme ce be provided to the decree ho arned counsel for the petitione rimarily on the ground that the and that once the objections o and revival had been raised, th sue warrants of attachment. It is without proper adjudication of th nd therefore liable to be set aside ving considered the submission vanced. As discussed in detail e judgment debtor regarding the ave already been adjudicated an rt vide reasoned order dated 2

025 (Annexure P-3) ns filed by the judgment debtor v execution proceedings continu on), Faridabad. The decree hol o the judgment debtor company he Hon'ble High Court of Bomb d Executing Court, vide impugn directed issuance of warrants ent debtor and further directed t older for effective execution of r–judgment debtor has challeng same is consequential to the ear of the judgment debtor regard he learned court ought not to h contended that the impugned or he company's financial position a e. ns, this Court finds no merit in in the foregoing paragraphs, revival scheme and maintainabi nd rightly dismissed by the learn

22.09.2025. Once those objecti

vide ued lder for bay. ned of that ged rlier ding have rder and ility ned

stood rejected a Court was legall

27.

judgment debtor and cannot be continues to d accordance with Procedure, whi decree. The dir equally justified prevent obstruct

28.

irregularity in th Civil Judge (Ju and flows logica Court. Conclusion

29.

Acc also fails, and th Final Conclusio

30.

For

06.08.2025 (A (Annexure P-3) passed by the l and no stay was granted by any ly bound to take further steps tow e issuance of warrants of attac r is a necessary and consequent termed illegal or irregular me dispute the decree. The Execu h law and within the parameters ch empowers it to attach prop ection to the Station House Of d to ensure effective implement tion in the execution process. ere is thus no jurisdictional he order dated 08.10.2025 (Ann nior Division), Faridabad. The ally from the earlier orders, whic cordingly, the challenge to the he same is upheld. on r the reasons recorded above, a Annexure P-1), 22.09.2025 (A ) have been found to be well-learned Executing Court in du

y competent forum, the Execut ward realization of the decree. chment against the property of tial step in the process of execut rely because the judgment deb uting Court has acted strictly of Order XXI of the Code of C perty for satisfying an executa fficer to render police assistance tation of the court's orders and error, perversity, or procedu nexure P-3) passed by the learn said order is purely consequen ch have already been upheld by t impugned order dated 08.10.20 ll the three impugned orders da Annexure P-2), and 08.10.20 -reasoned, legally sustainable, a ue exercise of its jurisdiction. T

ting tion btor in Civil able e is d to ural ned ntial this ated

Executing Cour enforcement of t

31.

dismissed.

32.

Pen

October 28, 202 tripti

Whether

Whether rt has rightly proceeded in ac the decree passed by the Hon'ble e present civil revision petition nding application(s), if any, also

speaking/non-speaking : Speaking r reportable : Yes/No

ccordance with law to ensure e High Court of Bombay. n, being devoid of merit, is here stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE