High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Sweet Plastic Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Thru Its Managing v. Harjeet Singh Proprietor M/S New India Chemicals - WRIT - C No. - 53806 of 2007  RD-AH 17214 (31 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 6
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53806 of 2007
M/s. Sweet Plastic Pipes Private Ltd.
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
The petitioner is the defendant of Original Suit No. 276 of 1995 that had been filed for recovery of Rs. 3,32,193/- in the Court of District Judge, Delhi.
The Suit was decreed ex-parte by means of the judgment and decree dated 8th February, 2002. Execution Suit No. 7 of 2005 was filed before the Additional District Judge, Tees Hazari Court, Delhi. It was sent for execution to the District Judge Etawah.
The Court issued notices on 18th July, 2006 to the petitioner but as they could not be served, the notices were directed to be published in the local newspaper. They were, accordingly, published in the newspaper but still the petitioner did not put in appearance before the Executing Court. The petitioner then filed objections before the Executing Court on 17th March, 2007 which have been dismissed by the order dated 23rd May, 2007 and the Review Application has also been rejected by the order dated 23rd May, 2007. This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 30th August, 2007 passed by the Court in Execution Suit No. 7 of 2007 by which the Review Application was rejected.
The Court has noticed in the order that 14 attempts were made to serve the notice upon the judgment-debtor and even though persons were present in the house, they refused to take the notice. Details of each of these notices have been given in the judgment. The notices had also been pasted on the door of his house. They were eventually published in the newspaper also. The Court has, therefore, held that there was no error in the order dated 23rd May, 2007.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not served with any notice by the Executing Court and, therefore, he could not appear and, therefore, the order passed by the District Judge on 23rd May, 2007 for proceeding ex-parte was required to be reviewed but the Court below illegally rejected the Review Petition.
The facts stated in the order clearly reveal that as many as 14 attempts had been made to serve the notices upon the petitioner by Registered Post but on one pretext or the other they were not received and ultimately the notice was also published in the newspaper. In such circumstances there is no error in the order passed by the Court below rejecting the review application.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.