- (1.) The defendant- petitioner had filed a suit for rendition of accounts pertaining to the assets of firm Ms Hind Furniture, Anant Market, Civil Lines, Jagadhri and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant- respondents from alienating the property of the firm besides seeking appointment of receiver. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant/ petitioner Ranbir Singh made the following statement before the trial Judge on September 12, 2008:- "Stated that I shall pay Rs.6000/- per month toward partnership of M/s Hind Furniture and will be bound by my statement." On the basis of said statement, the trial Court recorded the statement of Inderjit Kaur, plaintiff- respondent No.1:- "Stated that keeping in view the statement made above, I withdraw my case and I alongwith my children Rajish and Lalit will not interfere in the work" The trial Court on September 12, 2008 passed the following order:- "Shri Anil Aggarwal, Advocate for plaintiff. Shri D.S. Khurana, Advocate for defendant. "Defendant Ranbir Singh has made the statement that he shall given an amount of Rs.6000/- to the plaintiff as partners of M/s Hind Furniture and he shall be bound by his statement. The plaintiff has also made the statement that in view of the statement made by defendant, she does not want to proceed further with the present suit and her sons would not interfere in the suit property. In view of the statement made by the plaintiff, present suit is hereby dismissed and defendant is bound by the statement made in the Court. File be consigned to record room. Announced. Sd/-Civil Judge (Junior Division) 12.9.2008 Jagadhri."
(2.) On the basis of the order passed on September 12, 2008, the plaintiff- respondents filed an application for execution under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC claiming that the defendant- petitioner judgment debtor had intentionally and willfully not paid a sum of Rs.1.32 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 6% from September 12, 2010 till realization, as per order dated September 12, 2008.
(3.) Vide impugned order dated September 2, 2011, the Executing Court had issued warrants of recovery by attachment of property of defendant judgment debtor/ petitioner by dismissing his objections that no decree had been passed in the civil suit and that there had not been any adjudication regarding the recovery of the amount.;