Mihir Bhattacharya vs Mukunda Kumar Nag - 2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 12213

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 12213

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ananda Kumar Tiwari, Judicial Member
Mihir Bhattacharya – Appellant
Versus
Mukunda Kumar Nag – Respondent
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. SC/18/EA/93/2017|sc/19/cc/41/2013

Important Points

An execution application is liable to be dismissed under the Code of Civil Procedure if the decree holder consistently fails to appear or take necessary steps despite multiple opportunities and notices.

Subject

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings

Act Referred

Code of Civil Procedure: O.XXI R. 105

Headnote

(A) Execution Proceedings - Non-appearance of Decree Holder - Failure of the Decree Holder to appear on multiple dates and fail to take necessary steps leads to the dismissal of the execution application for default. (Para 2)

Issues: Whether the Execution Application can be dismissed due to the persistent non-appearance and inaction of the Decree Holder.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: NEMO
For the Respondents: NEMO

ORDER

Hon'ble Mr. Ananda Kumar Tiwari ,Judicial Presiding Member

Order No.28

None appears on behalf of the D.hr on call.

Today the date is fixed for filing show cause by the D.hr. It appears that on the last several dates the D.hr failed to appear and failed to take steps. Also perused the Order No.23 dated 06/03/2023, by way of which Joint Registrar, Bench – III was directed to issue notices to the parties to appear before this Commission on 02/04/2026. But the parties failed to appear.

In view of the same, the Execution Application being No. EA/93/2017 is dismissed under Order XXI of Rule 105 of C.P.C.