VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.3.2018 passed in Execution Case no. 55 of 2012. A further prayer has been made to direct the execution court (District Judge) to dispose of the objection under Section 47 CPC (Paper No. 36C-2) and the execution proceedings be dropped and in pursuance of order dated 19.3.2018 no action against the petitioner be taken by Amin or through other agency of the said order be not given effect against the petitioner.
(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 47 CPC were not accepted on record and without taking the objections filed by the petitioner on record and without noticing the presence of the petitioner, order for attachment and providing police force to arrest the petitioner has been passed. It was further submitted that even on the earlier occasions also the petitioner had filed written application dated 22.2.2018 but the executing court has refused to accept on record and therefore, the petitioner was forced to file a petition being Matter under Article 227 No. 1221 of 2018 (Ram Babu v. Mahendra and Mahendra Financial Services Limited), which was disposed of on 27.2.2018 whereby it was provided that in case any objection is filed before the executing court, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. The aforesaid order is quoted as under: "The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.2.2018 passed by the Execution Court in execution Case No. 55/2012. By the said order, the Execution Court has proceeded to issue a warrant of arrest of the judgment debtor in exercise of power under Order 21, Rule 15 and 30 CPC. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had never taken any loan nor has any concern with the arbitral proceedings, in which award was rendered, nor he is the judgment debtor, consequently, the order of the Executing Court for his arrest is wholly illegal. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner filed objections in the execution proceedings on 11.12.2014, in which although several objections have been raised, but therein there is no such objection as is being contended before this Court. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner tried to raise these objections by filing a written application dated 22.2.2018, but the Executing Court has refused to take the same on record. This Court is unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that when objections in shape of a written application was filed, the Court below has refused to take the same on record. Apart from it, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner has disputed his connection with the arbitral proceedings and the award rendered in those proceedings. Consequently, this Court does find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, it is left open to the petitioner to raise these objections, if so advised, before the Executing Court. In the event, any such objection is filed, it goes without saying that the Executing Court will deal with the same in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.";