##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

Reserved On: 08.04.2026 Pronounced On: 16.04.2026

Uploaded On: 17.04.2026 Whether the Operative part or

full judgment is pronounced: Full

CM(M) 107/2026

Feroz Ahmad Dar (Age: 50 years)

S/o Late Farooq Ahmad Dar.

R/o Muslim Peer Sopore, District Baramulla.

…..Petitioner

Through: Mr.Owais Sareer, Adv.

Versus

M/s Himalayan Motors Through Its Managing Partner

Bashir Ahmad Beigh Office: Tengpora, Bypass, Srinagar.

… Respondents.

Through:

C ORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1. The petitioner though the medium of instant petition has sought following

reliefs:

“i) Direct the learned Executing Court to first decide the pending Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code application on its own merits and in accordance with

law, before proceeding any further with the execution petition.

ii. Direct the learned Executing Court to follow the procedure prescribed under Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code strictly, if and when it proceeds

with the execution after deciding the Section 47 application.

iii. Any other order, as may be found appropriate and necessary in the nature and circumstances of this case and in the interest of natural justice, equity

and fair play be passed in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent bank with costs.”

BRIEF FACTS

2. The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality and propriety of order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar (Executing Court), whereby levy warrants have been issued in

execution of an ex parte money decree dated 02.11.2023.

3. The respondent herein had instituted a civil suit titled Himalayan Motors vs. Feroz Ahmad Dar, which culminated in an ex parte money decree dated 02.11.2023 against the present petitioner/judgment debtor. Pursuant thereto, the respondent/decree holder initiated execution proceedings before the learned

Executing Court on 10.02.2024.

4. Upon appearance in the execution proceedings, the petitioner/judgment debtor filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 29.05.2024, questioning the execution of the decree on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction and thus void ab initio. The respondent/decree holder filed objections

thereto.

5. It is also borne out from the record that during the pendency of the aforesaid application, the then Presiding Officer of the Executing Court came to be transferred, as a result whereof the application could not be taken to its logical

conclusion and remained undecided.

CM(M) No. 107/2026 Page No. 2

6. It is further evident that thereafter, without adjudicating upon the said application, the learned Executing Court, vide order dated 23.01.2026, proceeded

to issue levy warrants against the petitioner/judgment debtor.

7. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, on the ground that the Executing Court has acted with material irregularity and in excess of jurisdiction by proceeding with coercive steps in execution without first deciding

the objection as to execution of the decree.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned execution proceedings are vitiated by patent illegality and jurisdictional error. It is contended that an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure strikes at the very root of the decree, and the Executing Court is under a mandatory duty to decide all questions relating to jurisdiction before proceeding further with execution. In the present case, the Learned counsel submits that by bypassing this essential requirement, the Executing Court has acted without jurisdiction and in violation of the settled principles of natural justice, thereby subjecting the petitioner to coercive

measures without adjudication of application filed under section 47 of CPC.

9. Learned counsel also su