Back
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Davinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Imaginearc Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 19.01.2023 passed in Ex. (Comm) 13/2023 titled Davinder Kumar vs. Imaginearc Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, whereby the learned Executing Court had refrained from issuing notice to the judgment debtor on the ground that the statutory period of appeal had not lapsed as on that date.
2. Mr. Rajat Arora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/decree holder submits that there was no occasion for the learned Executing Court to have delayed the issuance of notice to the respondent/judgment debtor on the ground that statutory period of the appeal has not lapsed yet.
3. In view of the aforesaid, learned Executing Court is directed to issue notice to the respondent/judgment debtor forthwith and proceed with the execution proceedings in all earnest and in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418.
4. The learned Executing Court shall also keep in mind the time frame as stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Rahul S. Shah (supra) while conducting the e
The executing court should issue notice to the judgment debtor and proceed with the execution proceedings in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The court emphasized the necessity of actual service of notice and the consideration of delay circumstances in applications under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC.
Notice to the judgment debtor is required only in cases covered by Order XXI Rule 22 (1) (a), (b) and (c) and further that even in cases covered by those provisions, the court may, for reasons to be ....
Notice to the judgment debtor in execution proceedings is mandated only under specific provisions; courts may dispense with it otherwise, provided it does not cause undue prejudice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to grant a stay of execution based on sufficient cause shown, as provided in Order 26 Rule 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedu....
The Trial Court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and against the appellant without ensuring notice to the appellant and/or his counsel had been effected was in violation ....
If summons issued on the correct address have not been returned, the presumption is that the summons has been received by the addressee.
: Emphasizing expeditious disposal of execution petitions as per legal provisions and prior directives.
The court mandates the timely disposal of I.A No.2/2025 to ensure the effective exercise of appellate rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
