IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-8291-2025 Reserved on: 17.11.2025 Pronounced on 21.11..2025 SIDHARTH GUPTA .… Petitioner Versus RAJEEV SETHI … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Ravi Sikri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepank Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner (Through VC)

Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the respondent/caveator.

Parmod Goyal, J.

Petitioner/judgment debtor is aggrieved by order dated

11.09.2025 (Annexure P-21), passed by Executing Court/Commercial Court, Gurgaon, whereby application filed by respondent/decree holder under Order XXI Rule 37 and 40 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed. Petitioner/ judgment debtor is further aggrieved by order dated 29.10.2025, whereby application filed by petitioner/judgment debtor under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC seeking review of order dated

11.09.2025 was also dismissed.

2. Vide judgment and decree dated 27.02.2020, passed by High Court of Delhi, suit preferred by decree holder against judgment debtor/defendant for recovery of Rs. 2.25 Crores along with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum along with cost of Rs.2.22 Lakhs was decreed. The said decree was transferred for execution by High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 12.10.2021. The appeal bearing RFA (OS) (COMM) No. 2/2022 preferred by petitioner/judgment debtor dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure P-5) filed by judgment debtor/defendant was dismissed by Division Bench of Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated

02.06.2022.

3. It is worth noticing that petitioner/judgment debtor had preferred the said appeal along with an application under Order XLIV Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file appeal as indigent person. Appeal as well as application preferred by Petitioner/judgment debtor to sue as indigent person were dismissed vide judgment dated

02.06.2022.

4. Before the Executing Court respondent / decree holder had preferred an application under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC seeking details of assets of petitioner/judgment debtor. In compliance of said application petitioner/judgment debtor had duly filed his reply. After receipt of reply decree holder claimed that petitioner/judgment debtor has intentionally concealed material facts regarding his movable and immovable properties and assets required to be mentioned and had intentionally given vague and incomplete details of properties and assets owned and disposed off by him only with purpose to defeat execution petition without any documents. It was averred that petitioner/judgment debtor has neither admitted nor denied about the movable and immovable properties belonging to him as mentioned in schedule attached with the execution petition. He has intentionally not disclosed the nature and source of income regarding his alleged consultation and liasoning work. Judgment debtor has only referred to income tax return for the assessment year 2022-2023 without filing copy of said return and computation certificate. He had also not intentionally filed income tax return for the year 2015-2016 on the ground that he is facing complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He also denied having any immovable property and claimed to be living in leased house leased by his wife, however, has not disclosed source of income of his wife who is stated to be housewife without any independent earnings. He had not disclosed status of property mentioned in schedule filed along with execution petition. He has failed to disclose the relationship between him and different alleged creditors payments were made by him to dispose off sale consideration received by selling his known properties. It was alleged that petitioner/judgment debtor has also concealed details of his bank accounts. In view of evasive reply to application under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC petitioner/judgment debtor had prayed for examination of petitioner/judgment debtor by moving application under Order XXI Rule 40 CPC and also prayed fo