V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.04.04

2026:CGHC:13568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 181 of 2025

1 - Abhishek Dulani @ Raja Dulani S/o Late Shri Banshilal Dulani Aged About 40 Years Proprietor Of M/s Ambika Lorry Arranger, Village- Tarenga, Parshu Ram Ward- Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (Execution Wrongly Filed As M/s Ambika Road Lines, Through Proprietor/partner And Authorized Signatoroy, Abhishek Dulani @Raja Dulani, S/o Late Shri Banshilal Dulani, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Near Naka No. 1, Village- Tarenga Road Parshuram Ward, Bhatapara, District-

Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through, Mandal Prabandhak, Mandal Office No. 2 Jivan Bima Bhawan Pandari Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - M/s Prem Prakash Foods, Proprietorship Firm Surajpur Road Bhatapara Through Poa Holder- The New India Assurance Com.Ltd., Through Mandal Prabandhak, Mandal Office No. 2 Jivan Bima Bhawan Pandari Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from the CIS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Shri Priyank Rathi, and Shri Kamlesh Patel, Advocates For Respondent-1 : Shri BN Nande, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Order on Board

20.03.2026

1. Heard.

2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 03.02.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatapara in Execution Case-11 of

2014, whereby the learned trial Court, in execution of judgment and decree dated 27.09.2018, passed in Civil Suit-11B of 2014, warrant for attachment of movable properties of the judgment debtor has been issued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents prosecuted a Civil Suit-11B of 2014 before the learned trial Court for recovery of Rs.2,69,650/-, with respect to their business transaction. The said Civil Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2018. In the Civil Suit, the dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant – firm, M/s Ambika Road Lines and father of the petitioner was the proprietor of the said firm. It was a proprietorship concern. During pendency of the suit, father of the petitioner namely, Banshilal has died and the said proprietorship of the firm was dissolved. Though he has not inherited the property of the firm, yet, the petitioner was substituted in place of Banshilal Dulani as proprietor of the firm before the learned trial Court. He would also submit that while passing the judgment and decree, learned trial Court has specifically ordered that the amount of Rs.2,69,650/- is recoverable from the properties of the firm, or the properties of its proprietor Banshilal Dulani, and it is specifically observed in para-21 of the judgment that the amount is not recoverable from the present petitioner-Abhishek Dulani @ Raja Dulani. He would further submit that the respondents have filed an execution application in which the petitioner is shown as proprietor of the firm. After service of notice, petitioner appears in the execution proceeding and raised an objection on 28.08.2023 (Annexure P7) that after death of his father Banshilal Dulani, firm was dissolved, and he has not inherited the property of the firm.

Therefore, execution application filed against him is not maintainable.

He would also submit that the objection raised by the petitioner before the learned executing Court has not been decided and on 10.06.2024, the judgment debtor was directed to pay the decreed amount to the decree holder, and subsequently, the attachment warrant of movable property of the judgment debtor was issued. He would also submit that on 03.02.2025, attachment warrant was issu