Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: EXECTUION MISC DJ 753/25
KAILASH CHAND SINGHAL Vs. RAVINDER NATH BHATIA
25.07.2025
Present: Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Ld. Counsel for respondent.
Reply filed.
Arguments heard.
It appears that a case of recovery of money was filed in
the year 2019 and summons was served on the address of defendant
i.e. D-6/10 and as per the report of process server, the defendant
himself had received the summons with due signature.
Defendant chosen not to appear in the case due to which
he was proceeded exparte and ultimately a decree was passed in the
year 2023.
When the plaintiff came up with execution of the decree,
the defendant of voided execution of warrant which was sent at the
address i.e. D-6/10 and this has been repeatedly done.
The defendant than has come up with the instant petition
under Order 9 Rule CPC with a claim that he was never served. Ld.
Counsel for defendant tried to argue that D-6/10 is not the address
of defendant. This court is of the view that the Ld. Counsel has tried
to mislead the court. It appears that Vakalatnama date 21.02.2025
has been filed by the defendant in the main suit and the address used
thereon is D-6/10. The warrant of attachment was also sent
repeatedly at D-6/10 where the defendant had made with the bailiff.
-- 1 of 1 --