JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL) THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

The present Appeal has been filed by Judgment Debtor No.7 against the order dated 09.11.2020 by which the Non-Bailable Warrants had been issued against the Judgment Debtor No.7 for non-appearance in execution of Bailable Warrants.

2.      The argument of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Judgement Debtor No.7 had nothing to do with the Complainant.  She had resigned from the directorship in the year 2018 and that she was never a director or the shareholder in the developer company.  It is submitted that an application to this effect has also been filed before the State Commission which is pending for disposal.  It is argued that since she is not liable in any way, the issuance of Bailable Warrants or Non-Bailable Warrants against her by the executing court is an act without jurisdiction and therefore, the execution proceedings qua her be quashed or in alternate no coercive action be taken against her and also her name be deleted from the array of parties of judgement debtors.

3.      I have heard the learned Counsels for more than                    half hour and have perused the relevant record.  The admitted facts are that in the Complaint filed by the Complainant, the name of the appellant had appeared as one of the Opposite Parties.  It is submitted by the learned Counsels that she was not served with the Complaint and therefore, could not put up any defence in the complaint case.  It is argued that it is in this circumstance that the order under execution had been passed wherein the liability had also been fixed upon her jointly and severally. 

4.      It is clear from the argument that the Appellant was a party before the State Commission in the Complaint Case.  Her contention that she was not served of the Complaint.  It is not contended that the Appellant has filed any appeal against the order of the State Commission in the Complaint which is under execution.  As per argument, only review application was filed for the review of the order under execution but the same was dismissed.   If that is the position, she was a party in the complaint case and it is apparent that the executing court has no jurisdiction to go behind the decree or final order which is needed to be executed.  Therefore, the argument of learned Counsel whether the appellant was or was not, is or is not a director or whether she had nothing to do with the developer company or the builder or any other company which had constructed the flat, cannot be raised before the executing court.  The executing court is bound to execute the order against all parties to the Complaint.  Therefore, the State Commission has correctly executed the order in the Complaint and after being satisfied that the Bailable Warrants in the execution proceedings were served upon the appellant, had issued the Non-Bailable Warrants.  The executing court has acted within its jurisdiction.

5.      It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant is an old lady and had been suffering with Covid and is now recovering, therefore, she be exempted.  On enquiry, it is confirmed that on the date of hearing, i.e. 09.11.2020, before the State Commission in the execution proceedings, no such request had been made.  Even in the present Appeal, there is no such contention.  Learned Counsel has submitted that the Appellant had suffered with Covid only after filing of the present Appeal.  However, till date, neither any application no