Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Dewan Chand Builders and Contractors - Appellant
Versus
Rayco Engineering Services - Respondent
CM(M) 754 of 2022 & CM Appl. 33597 of 2022, CM Appl. 33598 of 2022
Decided On : 01-08-2022
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Execution Proceedings
Headnote
Facts of the case:
This petition is directed against the orders of the learned Additional District Judge regarding adjourned execution proceedings, addressing concerns over the amount payable to the decree holder as outlined in the orders dated 1st July and 8th July 2022.
Findings of Court:
The High Court deemed it unnecessary to intervene at this stage, allowing the petitioner to voice disputes before the learned ADJ.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the High Court should intervene in the adjourned proceedings of the learned ADJ regarding the calculation of payable amounts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it would not disturb the learned ADJ's adjournment orders and emphasized the petitioner’s right to address calculations before said judge, maintaining the integrity of the initial proceedings.
Result: Petition disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition under article 227 against lower court orders (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. discontent regarding amount calculation by adj (Para 3) |
| 3. liberty to contest calculations with no court view (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. petition disposed of with no costs (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against orders dated 1st July, 2022 and 8th July, 2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (the learned ADJ) in Execution No. 107/18 (Rayco Engineering Services v. Dewan Chand Builders & Contractors).
2. A reading of the two orders indicates that, vide the order dated 1st July, 2022, the learned ADJ adjourned the proceedings to 8th July, 2022, and vide the order dated 8th July, 2022, he adjourned the matter further to 8th August, 2022.
3. There are certain observations contained in the order dated 8th July, 2022 regarding the calculation of the amount payable to the decree holder. Mr. Kang, learned Counsel for the petitioner (the judgment debtor) expresses reservations against the said calculation.
4. Inasmuch as the learned ADJ has merely adjourned the proceedings, albeit with the aforesaid observations, I do not deem it necessary to burden this Court by keeping this matter pending, especially as the jurisdiction being exercised by this Court is only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. As such, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to, should, he have any dispute regarding the calculations contained in the orders dated 1st July, 2022 and 8th July, 2022, ventilate the said issue before the learned ADJ on the next date of hearing.
6. It would be open to the petitioner to urge, before the learned ADJ, the actual amount which, according to him, is payable to the respondent-decree holder.
7. This Court is not expressing any view in the matter. The learned ADJ would, no doubt, hear the petitioner on the aforesaid aspect before taking a final decision on the amount payable by the petitioner to the respondent. Needless to say, the respondent would also be at liberty to meet the submissions of the petitioner in that regard.
8. This petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.
Dasti.
