ORDER

This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Betul in Case No. ExB/003/2018.

2 .It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners No.1 and 2 are the Directors of the defendant/respondent No.2, which is a Company registered under the Companies Act. The respondent No.1 is also a Company engaged in business of solvent extraction, refining of edible oils, oil seed development and manufacture of animal feed. The respondent No.1 filed a suit against the petitioners as well as the respondent No.2 on the ground that the respondent No.1 had supplied Soyabean De-oiled cake (DOC) and to pay the cost of the said DOC, the respondent No.2 had issued several cheques amounting to Rs.2,45,51,643/- which were dishonoured. The respondent No.1 not only filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act but also filed a civil suit under Order 37 of CPC. The petitioners were impleaded as defendants in the said suit being the Directors of respondent No.2. The petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which was rejected by the trial Court. The petitioners on receiving the summons for judgment, preferred an application under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of CPC to defend the suit and accordingly, the trial Court vide order dated 14.09.2017 was pleased to allow to the petitioners to defend the suit subject to deposit of 25% of the claim amount. Ultimately by judgment and decree dated 12.01.2018 an ex-parte judgment was passed in favour of respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 filed an application for execution of the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2018. Only after receiving the notices the petitioners came to know about the ex-parte judgment and decree. The petitioners preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC alongwith an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for setting aside ex-<br/>

parte judgment and decree dated 12.01.2018. However, the said application was rejected by order dated 14.08.2021.

3 . The petitioners preferred an appeal before this Court, which has been registered as M.A. No.2934/2021 and it is still pending consideration.

4 .It is submitted that a Company Petition under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, was admitted by National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench and Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated vide order dated 30.09.2019 in respect of respondent No.2 and a Resolution Professional was appointed over and in respect of respondent No.2. Moratorium under Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was declared. The respondent No.1 has also submitted a claim amounting to Rs.4,16,26,732/- in Form-B before the Resolution Professional and the said claim has been admitted by Resolution Professional. Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.1 cannot claim the same amount from two different judicial forums. It is further claimed that by order dated 07.01.2021, liquidation proceedings have been initiated against the respondent No.2 and the liquidator has been appointed. It is submitted that the Executing Court by order dated 09.01.2023 directed the petitioners to furnish the details of movable and immovable assets and also called for their personal appearance on 24th January, 2023. By order dated 24th January, 2023, the Executing Court has granted an adjournment and has directed the petitioners to furnish the affidavits alongwith the personal appearance of the petitioners on 6th February, 2023.

5 .Challenging the execution proceedings, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the Executing Court failed to consider that the respondent No.2 is under liquidation and moratorium has been declared against it in terms of Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which provides that there (G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE shall be a prohibition on further adjudication of any suits or proceeding includ