Soumen Sen, J. - (1.) The Court : In terms of the order dated 17th January, 2018 in G.A. No. 3154 of 2017, the judgment-debtor nos. 2 and 3 are present in Court. Both the judgment-debtors have given an undertaking that they shall be present in Court as and when required and file individual affidavit of asset in Form no. 16A of appendix E of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under such circumstances, the warrants of arrest are recalled. The judgment-debtors are to file individual affidavit of assets in Form no. 16A of appendix E of the Code of Civil Procedure within four weeks from date. The judgment-debtor no. 2 shall be present in examination on 16th March, 2018. The appearance of judgment-debtor no. 3 for the time being is dispensed with.
(2.) In the application filed by the judgment-debtor nos. 1 and 2, it is contended that the award was never served upon the judgmentdebtors as the business of the judgment-debtor no. 1 was shifted premises no. 5-47/4, Chanda Nagar, Sherlingampally, Hyderabad to a new premises no. 5-74/4, Chandannagar appears to be incorrect as the judgment-debtor no. 2 in his affidavit has stated that he is carrying on business at 5-47/4, Chanda Nagar, Sherlingampally. The judgment-debtor no. 1 is a partnership firm on which the judgment-debtor nos. 2 and 3 are the partners. It is not being contended that the premises no. 5-47/4 has nothing to do with the partnership business. In any event by reason of the affidavit made on behalf of the judgment-debtor nos. 1 and 2 in which the judgment-debtor no. 2 has categorically stated that he is carrying on business at 5-47/4, Chanda Nagar, the basis of this application goes. It is a completely frivolous application and dismiss with costs assessed at 800 Gms. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the award-holder has submitted that the costs may be paid to any charitable institution engaged in philanthropic activities. The judgment-debtors shall pay 800 Gms. to Ramakrishna Mission Seva Pratishthan at 99, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata700 026 through RTGS in the following bank : JUDGEMENT_106_LAWS(CAL)2_2018_1.html It further transpires that the judgment-debtor no. 2 during his crossexamination has stated that he does not understand anything, save and except Telegu and he cannot write in English. The judgment-debtor no. 2 when was asked to write his name and address in English has stated that he is unable to do so and he is not conversant in English. However this application is in English and it is nowhere written in the said application that the contents of the said application have been read over and explained to him. Accordingly, G.A. No. 3154 stands dismissed.;