$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07.04.2025 + FAO 92/2025, CM APPL. 20563/2025 & CM APPL. 20564/2025 S.B. PODDAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Harish Katyal, Ms. Monica Katyal, Ms. Aditi Todaria & Ms.

Prachi Bhandari, Advocates.

versus M/S REHABILITATIONS PLANTATION LTD & ORS. .....Respondents Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J.(ORAL)

1. The present appeal is filed against the order dated 19.03.2025 („impugned order‟) passed in Ex. Pet. No.1329/2017 titled M/s Rehabilitation Plantation Limited vs. S.B. Poddar before the Court of District Judge-07, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi („Executing Court‟).

2. By way of the impugned order, an application under Section 47 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, („CPC‟) filed by the Appellant praying for dismissal of the execution petition filed against the Appellant on the ground that the decree under execution was null and void Signature Not Verified FAO 92/2025 Page 1 of 6 Signed By:NEELAM and inexecutable as the learned Court, which passed the decree lacked inherent jurisdiction and also the same was obtained by misleading and making false submissions and concealment of material facts from the learned Court.

3. The decree under the execution was passed by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kottarakkara, Kerala („Trial Court‟) on 08.07.1997 in Original Suit No. 13/1991 filed by Respondent No.1, the decree holder, for recovery of ₹3,38,223.74/- with future interest and costs against the Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the loss suffered by Respondent No.1 as a result of mis-delivery of goods (“Suit”)

4. The Respondent No.1 had appointed the Appellant as its selling agent for sale of latex in various States and authorized the Appellant to arrange for sale of latex belonging to Respondent No.1 at prices to be fixed by Respondent No.1 from time to time. The Respondent No.1 suffered a loss of ₹2,83,519.80/- due to mis-delivery of latex by Respondent No.4 and claimed the said loss from the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 jointly and severely by filing the Suit.

5. The Appellant has submitted that there was no allegation against the Appellant in the plaint showing that the Appellant was responsible/liable for the mis-delivery of latex as a result of which the Respondent No.1 alleged to have suffered the loss. Further, there was no averment/pleading in the entire plaint nor there was any document annexed with the plaint to demonstrate the responsibility/liability of the Appellant for the amount claimed in the suit by the Respondent No.1. Accordingly, there was no Signature Not Verified FAO 92/2025 Page 2 of 6 Signed By:NEELAM cause of action against the Appellant in the Suit and the decree passed against the Appellant was nullity, void ab initio and was inexecutable.

6. The Appellant also submitted that the Respondent No.1 has misled the learned Executing Court by making false statements and concealing material facts from the learned Trial Court by cleverly drafting the plaint.

7. The Appellant has submitted that the Respondent No.1 has received an excess amount by invoking the bank guarantees provided by the Appellant for appointing the Appellant as the selling agent. Accordingly, the Respondent No.1 has already received an amount more than the amount due under the decree. These facts were deliberately and wilfully concealed from the learned Trial Court with malafide intentions to get undue advantage. The Respondent No.1 has also concealed the same from the learned Executing Court that it has received more than the amount due under the decree.

8. When the Appellant raised the objection, the Respondent No.1 made false submissions that the amount received by the Respondent No.1 was in another execution. The Appellant, therefore, preferred an application under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the CPC praying for dismissal of the execution petition as the decree under execution was null and void, inexecut