The making of an order of adjudication by the Insolvency Court is a prerequisite for any other Court to exercise power under Section 29 of the Insolvency Act.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - Heard through video conferencing.

2. This is a revision petition against the impugned order dated 07.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Executing Court dismissing the application filed by the JD-petitioner no.1 for staying the execution proceedings in view of the pendency of a petition under Sections 7 and 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 filed by him.

3. The brief facts, relevant to the present lis, are that in 2008 the DH-respondent had instituted a civil suit for recovery against the JDpetitioners. In this civil suit the JD-petitioner no.1 was represented as the sole proprietor of JD-petitioner no.2. This civil suit was decreed vide judgement and decree dated 18.12.2012. An appeal was filed by the JDpetitioners wherein the JD-petitioner no.1 represented himself as the sole proprietor of JD-petitioner no.2. This appeal was dismissed vide judgement and decree dated 27.03.2014. The JD-petitioners filed RSA No.3463 of 2014 in this Court in which the JD-petitioner no.1 represented himself as the sole proprietor of JD-petitioner no.2. This RSA. No.3463 of 2014 was dismissed on 10.07.2014. The SLP of the JD-petitioners was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2014. The JD-petitioners filed a review petition seeking review of the order dated 01.12.2014 passed by the Supreme Court. However, this review petition was also dismissed on 12.02.2015.

4. The DH-respondent had filed an execution petition in 2013 after the Trial Court had decreed her civil suit for recovery. Objections filed by the JD-petitioners were rejected by the Executing Court on 10.01.2020 and conditional warrants of arrest with regard to the decretal amount were ordered to be issued against the JD-petitioner no.1. The JD-petitioners challenged the order dated 10.01.2020 by filing a civil revision (CR-511- 2020) in this Court which civil revision petition was dismissed on 14.02.2020. On 19.02.2020, immediately after the dismissal of the civil revision mentioned above, the JD-petitioner no.1 filed a petition under Section 7 read with Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the Insolvency Act ) before the Insolvency Court. The DH-respondent has been impleaded as respondent no.2 in the said petition (INSO 4/2020). These facts have been obtained from the website of District Court, Ludhiana and the record of CR-511-2020 as the civil revision is silent about the date or year of filing of this insolvency petition and the factum of filing and dismissal of CR-511-2020. The impugned order (Annexure P-1) mentions about the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Executing Court and the civil revision filed against it.

5. After the JD-petitioner no.1 had filed the insolvency petition (INSO 4/2020) on 19.02.2020, on 27.02.2020 he filed an application (Annexure P-2) before the Executing Court for staying the execution proceedings in view of the pendency of the insolvency petition. It was also alleged that the JD-petitioner no.1 was not the sole proprietor of his firm (JD-petitioner no.2) rather it was a private limited company. The DHrespondent filed a reply (Annexure P-3) to this application. Vide impugned order dated 07.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) the Executing Court dismissed the application for stay (Annexure P-2) filed by the JD-petitioner no.1. The Executing Court inter-alia held that :

21) In the case at hand, admittedly, only notice of the insolvency petition has been issued to the creditors and no further, let alone passing the order of adjudication. Hence, looking at the contention of a pending insolvency petition from any angle, the same is without merits and thus stands rejected.

22) In light of the entire discussion above, the present application for staying the proceedings stands dismissed. Accordingly, conditional warrants of arrest as per the order dated 10.01.2020 be issued against the JD for 14.12.2020 .

6. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the JDpetitioners is that once the JD