K. Soni Builders vs Tarun Mehra & Anr

Aforesaid Appeals Execution are directed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission) dated 11.05.2022 in EA/453/2019 and EA/452/2019, whereby the State Commission issued non-bailable warrants against the Managing Director/Directors of the Appellant/Judgment Debtor.

Since the Opposite Party failed to satisfy the decree, the Decree Holders/Complainants filed separate Execution Applications. The Executing Court, vide separate orders dated 11.05.2022, issued non-bailable warrants against the Appellant/Judgment Debtor.

Aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 11.05.2022, the Appellant has filed the instant Appeals Execution.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Judgment Debtor. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant had already paid the required amount to the Decree Holder as the Appellant is required to pay only 1/3rd amount. The State Commission ignored this vital fact and issued non-bailable warrants against the Appellant. Learned Counsel further submitted that the issue of payment of amount is of civil nature and the Executing Court issued non-bailable warrants against the prevailing norms.

Before dealing with the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, it is necessary to go through the impugned order dated 11.05.2022 in Execution Application No.452/2019, which reads as follows: -

“Earlier bailable warrants and thereafter non-bailable warrants were issued since 22.12.2020. Thereafter, again non-bailable warrants were issued on 08.06.2021 and on subsequent dates as well. In the order dated 10.12.2021, it was mentioned that JD was interested to settle the dispute and just to show his bonafide, he handed over a demand draft of Rs.2 lacs, which was accepted with the observation that it was a meagre amount. It was further mentioned in the order that 1/3rd of the total outstanding amount be paid before the next date of hearing i.e. 11.01.2022. The case came up for hearing on 11.01.2022 and only an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid in cash. A direction was issued on that day that 1/3rd of the total outstanding amount be paid within a period of two weeks and directions were also issued to the JD to be present before this Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 28.01.2022. However, the JD was not present on the said date and only and undertaking was given by the counsel on behalf of the JD to pay the undertaken amount within a period of one week. It was also mentioned in the order that date was given for paying an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- on or before the next date of hearing. It was further mentioned that in case the undertaken amount was not paid before the next date, the serious consequences as mentioned in the order dated 11.01.2022 would follow and JD was required to be present before the Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 04.02.2022. Thereafter, both the parties were directed to place on record their respective calculations with mode of payment. On the subsequent two dates, the case was adjourned on one pretext or the other. Even the affidavit which was directed to be filed was not filed. Thereafter, the case came up for hearing on 27.04.2022. On that day also a request was made by the proxy counsel appearing for JD that arguing counsel was not available on that day. One more but last opportunity was granted. The case was adjourned with the direction that in case the compliance is not made, the appropriate proceedings would be initiated against the JD in accordance with law. It was also mentioned that in case still request was made on the next date of hearing it would be subject to cost.

Today neither the undertaken amount has been paid nor JD is present. Meaning thereby not only the decreed amount has been paid but non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court is also there, as in spite of specific direction to the JD by way of passing orders still the JD is not present and even the amount which was undertaken, has not been paid so far. Today case was passed over on the request made by learned counsel for the JD to get instructions on mobile. Simply it has been submitted that JD will be present on the next date of hearing with some amount but that some amount has not been specified as to how much amount would be paid.

An affidavit has been presented before the Court by learned counsel for JD and the same is not worth accepting as neither it has been mentioned in the affidavit as to how much time is likely to be taken nor any mode of payment has been stated and no explanation has been given in the affidavit as to why the JD was not present in spite of direction of the Court.”

Reading of the impugned order shows that the Appellant/Judgment Debtor time and again sought time from the Executing Court to make the payment to the Decree Holder and every time the Court noticed non-compliance of the order. The Appellant also failed to appear in person before the Executing Court in spite of clear directions issued. Initially, the Executing Court issued bailable warrants and thereafter non-bailable warrants were issued twice, in spite of that the Appellant did not bother to comply with the order. On 10.12.2021 in the execution proceedings the Appellant was directed to pay 1/3rd amount before the next date of hearing but the Appellant paid only an amount of Rs.50,000/-. On 11.01.2022, the Appellant was directed to pay 1/3rd of the total outstanding amount within a period of two weeks and to appear in person on the next date of hearing i.e. 28.01.2022. On 28.01.2022, neither the payment was made nor the Appellant appear in person. Thereafter, the case was adjourned three times i.e. 04.02.2022, 03.03.2022 and 27.04.2022 on the request made on behalf of the Appellant for compliance of the decree.

From the aforesaid facts, it is seen that the Executing Court was compelled by the Appellant to issue non-bailable warratns. It is also seen that this is third time non-bailable warrants have been issued against the Appellant/Judgment Debtor. The Appellant seems to be a willful defaulter. If the Appellant has every intention to comply with the decree, the Appellant may appear before the Executing Court and satisfy the decree.

We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the Impugned Order, warranting interference in the Appellate Jurisdiction. Both Appeals Execution are accordingly dismissed.