IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-7484-2025 (O&M) Decided on:-28.10.2025 Shree Lalit Fabrics Pvt Ltd. ....Petitioner VERSUS Shree Khodiyar Textile Mills Pvt Ltd. ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Varun Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 06.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, in the execution proceedings arising out of a decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.

Brief Facts

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent–plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of ₹75,92,721/- along with interest before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay against the petitioner–defendant. The said suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment dated 21.04.2014. According to the petitioner, he was never served in the said proceedings and the ex parte decree was obtained by the respondent–plaintiff by playing fraud upon the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, having mentioned a wrong address of the petitioner–defendant in the cause title.

3. Subsequently, the respondent–decree holder initiated execution proceedings before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, for execution of the aforesaid decree. It was at that stage that the petitioner–judgment debtor came to know about the said decree. The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Order 11 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for a direction to the decree holder to produce certain documents on record, particularly those relating to the winding-up proceedings of the petitioner-company under Section 27 of the Companies Act, 2013. It was alleged that such documents were essential for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the execution proceedings.

4. No reply was filed to the said application by the decree holder. However, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 06.08.2025, observing that the decree had been passed in the presence of both parties by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, and that the documents sought were within the knowledge and reach of both sides. The learned court further observed that if the judgment debtor claimed that the company had gone into winding up, it was incumbent upon him to produce the proof of such liquidation so that the executability of the decree could be examined. Accordingly, the application for production of documents was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to file documents relating to the winding-up proceedings on the next date of hearing.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner–judgment debtor contended that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the decree holder, as no reply was sought before passing the order. It was argued that the observation of the learned Executing Court that the decree was passed in the presence of both parties is factually incorrect, since the decree was admittedly ex parte. It was further urged that the learned court erred in holding that the documents sought were within the knowledge and possession of both parties, whereas the very purpose of filing the application was to obtain copies of the records from the decree holder, who had concealed material facts from the Bombay High Court. Hence, the order was liable to be set aside.

7. Notice in the matter is not required to be issued at this stage in view of the nature of the relief sought.

Findings of this Court

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, this Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the learned Executi