A sole proprietor can be held personally liable for the debts of their sole proprietorship in execution proceedings; technical objections should not obstruct the execution of valid decrees.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 12th November, 2021 passed by the Ld. ADJ-01 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter "Executing Court") in Execution Petition No. 633/2019 titled M/s. S.P.P. Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Ankur Dalmia. By the impugned order, the objections filed by the Judgment Debtor therein, have been rejected by the Executing Court.

3. The brief background of this case is that a suit was instituted by the Decree Holder/Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter "Decree Holder") being Civil Suit No.35/2016 titled M/s. S.P.P. Foods Products Private Limited v. M/s. Vidhi Packaging Industries, seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.12,60,509/- along with interest and costs. Vide judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2019, the said suit was decreed by the Trial Court in the following terms:

"xxx xxx xxx

(i) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.12,60,509/- along with simple rate of interest @ 9% p.a. from 20.6.2013 till the filing of the case and pendent-elite simple rate of interest @ 6% per annum and future rate of interest @ 9% per annum till its realization on the said amount.

(ii) The cost of suit of the Plaintiff is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant."

4. The said judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2019, was not assailed by the Defendant/Judgment Debtor. The Decree Holder then sought execution of the said judgment and decree, in Execution Petition No. 633/2019. Pertinently, the execution petition was preferred by the Decree Holder against the Appellant herein-Mr. Ankur Dalmia, who is the sole proprietor of the Defendant/Judgment Debtor Company-M/s. Vidhi Packaging Industries.

5. The Appellant, who was named as the Judgment Debtor in the Execution Petition, filed objections under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC before the Executing Court. In the objections filed by the Judgment Debtor, the primary plea is that the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2019 is in favour of the sole proprietorship concern -M/s. Vidhi Packaging Industries, and not against Mr. Ankur Dalmia. Thus, the execution of the decree could not have been sought against Mr. Ankur Dalmia.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Topanmal Chhotamal v. Kundomal Gangaram & Ors., [AIR 1960 SC 388] to argue that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and ought to take the decree as it stands.

7. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Decree Holder, submits that the Defendant in the suit i.e., M/s. Vidhi Packaging Industries, is nothing but the sole proprietary concern of Mr. Ankur Dalmia. Reliance is placed upon the written statement filed in the suit to submit that no objections had been taken by the Defendant that the sole proprietor has not been impleaded. The only objections taken were with respect to the territorial jurisdiction, defective quality of goods and the rate of interest claimed being on the higher side. He further relies upon the evidence by way of affidavit filed by Mr. Ankur Dalmia which confirms that he understood himself to be the Defendant in the suit, and he confirmed that he is the sole proprietor of the Defendant Company. He further submits that the execution petition was filed in 2016 and till date, the matter is continuing to remain pending before the Executing Court.

8. A perusal of the impugned order dated 28th February, 2019 shows that the objections raised by the Appellant herein is that the