CR-7484-2025 (O&M) v. Shree Khodiyar Textile Mills Pvt Ltd

Judgment

1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the

06.08.2025 Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 06.08.2025 Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, in (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, in 1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, in 1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, in the execution proceedings arising out of a decree passed by the Hon’ble High the execution proceedings arising out of a decree passed by the Hon’ble High the execution proceedings arising out of a decree passed by the Hon’ble High the execution proceedings arising out of a decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. Court of Bombay. Brief Facts

2. re that the Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition a Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition a along with interest plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of ₹75,92,721/- along with interest plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of respondent–plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of defendant. The before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay against the petitioner–defendant. The before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay against the petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay against the petitioner

2014. According to the said suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment dated 21.04.2014. According to the said suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment dated said suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment dated itioner, he was never served in the said proceedings and the ex parte decree was petitioner, he was never served in the said proceedings and the ex parte decree was itioner, he was never served in the said proceedings and the ex parte decree was itioner, he was never served in the said proceedings and the ex parte decree was

plaintiff by playing fraud upon the Hon’ble Bombay obtained by the respondent–plaintiff by playing fraud upon the Hon’ble Bombay plaintiff by playing fraud upon the Hon’ble Bombay obtained by the respondent TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) CR-7484-2025 (O&M) -2- defendant in the High Court, having mentioned a wrong address of the petitioner–defendant in the High Court, having mentioned a wrong address of the petitioner High Court, having mentioned a wrong address of the petitioner cause title.

3. Subsequently, Subsequently, decree holder the respondent–decree holder decree holder the respondent initiated execution initiated execution initiated execution proceedings before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, for proceedings before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, for proceedings before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, for proceedings before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, for judgment execution of the aforesaid decree. It was at that stage that the petitioner–judgment execution of the aforesaid decree. It was at that stage that the petitioner execution of the aforesaid decree. It was at that stage that the petitioner aid decree. The petitioner thereafter moved an debtor came to know about the said decree. The petitioner thereafter moved an aid decree. The petitioner thereafter moved an debtor came to know about the s application under Order 11 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for a application under Order 11 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for a application under Order 11 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for a application under Order 11 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for a direction to the decree holder to produce certain documents on record, particularly direction to the decree holder to produce certain documents on record, particularly direction to the decree holder to produce certain documents on record, particularly direction to the decree holder to produce certain documents on record, particularly those relating to the winding-up proceedings those relating to the winding company under up proceedings of the petitioner-company under of the Companies Act, 2013. It was alleged that such documents were Section 27 of the Companies Act, 2013. It was alleged that such documents were of the Companies Act, 2013. It was alleged that such documents were of the Companies Act, 2013. It was alleged that such documents were essential for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the execution essential for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the execution essential for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the execution essential for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the execution proceedings.

4. the decree holder. No reply was filed to the said application by the decree holder. No reply was filed to the said application by No reply was filed to the said application by However, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, dismissed the said However, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, dismissed the said However, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, dismissed the said However, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 06.08.2025 application vide impugned order dated , observing that the decree had 06.08.2025, observing that the decree had mbay, been passed in the presence of both parties by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, been passed in the presence of both parties by the Hon’ble High Court of Bo been passed in the presence of both parties by the Hon’ble High Court of Bo and that the documents sought were within the knowledge and reach of both sides. and that the documents sought were within the knowledge and reach of both sides. and that the documents sought were within the knowledge and reach of both sides. and that the documents sought were within the knowledge and reach of both sides. The learned court further observed that if the judgment debtor claimed that the The learned court further observed that if the judgment debtor claimed that the The learned court further observed that if the judgment debtor claimed that the The learned court further observed that if the judgment debtor claimed that the company had gone into winding up, it was incumbent upon him to produce the company had gone into winding up, it was incumbent upon him to produce the company had gone into winding up, it was incumbent upon him to produce the company had gone into winding up, it was incumbent upon him to produce the liquidation so that the executability of the decree could be examined. proof of such liquidation so that the executability of the decree could be examined. liquidation so that the executability of the decree could be examined. liquidation so that the executability of the decree could be examined. Accordingly, the application for production of documents was dismissed, and the Accordingly, the application for production of documents was dismissed, and the Accordingly, the application for production of documents was dismissed, and the Accordingly, the application for production of documents was dismissed, and the up proceedings on petitioner was directed to file documents relating to the winding-up proceedings on petitioner was directed to file documents relating to the winding petitioner was directed to file documents relating to the winding the next date of hearing. the next date of hear TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) CR-7484-2025 (O&M) -3-

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed. etitioner Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner Submissions of

6. judgment debtor contended that the Learned counsel for the petitioner–judgment debtor contended that the –judgment debtor contended that the Learned counsel for the petitioner anner and without affording impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner and without affording impugned order has been passed in a mechanical m impugned order has been passed in a mechanical m any opportunity of hearing to the decree holder, as no reply was sought before any opportunity of hearing to the decree holder, as no reply was sought before any opportunity of hearing to the decree holder, as no reply was sought before any opportunity of hearing to the decree holder, as no reply was sought before Executing passing the order. It was argued that the observation of the learned Executing passing the order. It was argued that the observation of the learned passing the order. It was argued that the observation of the learned ctually that the decree was passed in the presence of both parties is factually that the decree was passed in the presence of both parties is fa Court that the decree was passed in the presence of both parties is fa incorrect, since the decree was admittedly ex parte. It was further urged that the incorrect, since the decree was admittedly ex parte. It was further urged that the incorrect, since the decree was admittedly ex parte. It was further urged that the incorrect, since the decree was admittedly ex parte. It was further urged that the learned court erred in holding that the documents sought were within the learned court erred in holding that the documents sought were within the learned court erred in holding that the documents sought were within the learned court erred in holding that the documents sought were within the knowledge and possession of both parties, whereas the very purpose of filing the knowledge and possession of both parties, whereas the very purpose of filing the knowledge and possession of both parties, whereas the very purpose of filing the knowledge and possession of both parties, whereas the very purpose of filing the was to obtain copies of the records from the decree holder, who had application was to obtain copies of the records from the decree holder, who had was to obtain copies of the records from the decree holder, who had was to obtain copies of the records from the decree holder, who had concealed material facts from the Bombay High Court. Hence, the order was liable concealed material facts from the Bombay High Court. Hence, the order was liable concealed material facts from the Bombay High Court. Hence, the order was liable concealed material facts from the Bombay High Court. Hence, the order was liable to be set aside.

7. at this stage in view of Notice in the matter is not required to be issued at this stage in view of Notice in the matter is not required Notice in the matter is not required of the relief sought. the nature of the relief sought of this Court Findings of this Court

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, this Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by record, this Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by record, this Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by record, this Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the learned Executing Court Executing Court warranting interferen ce under Article 227 of the warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

9. cannot go It is a settled proposition of law that the Executing Court cannot go It is a settled proposition of law that the It is a settled proposition of law that the behind the decree. Its jurisdiction is confined to executing the decree as it stands behind the decree. Its jurisdiction is confined to executing the decree as it stands behind the decree. Its jurisdiction is confined to executing the decree as it stands behind the decree. Its jurisdiction is confined to executing the decree as it stands and not to reopen or re-examine the correctness or vali and not to reopen or re dity of the decree itself. examine the correctness or validity of the decree itself. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) CR-7484-2025 (O&M) -4- Even if it is alleged that the decree was obtained ex parte or by fraud, the proper Even if it is alleged that the decree was obtained ex parte or by fraud, the proper Even if it is alleged that the decree was obtained ex parte or by fraud, the proper Even if it is alleged that the decree was obtained ex parte or by fraud, the proper remedy available to the aggrieved party is to approach the same court which remedy available to the aggrieved party is to approach the same court which remedy available to the aggrieved party is to approach the same court which remedy available to the aggrieved party is to approach the same court which oceedings under passed the decree, seeking its setting aside by filing appropriate proceedings under passed the decree, seeking its setting aside by filing appropriate pr passed the decree, seeking its setting aside by filing appropriate pr Executing the Code of Civil Procedure, and not to invoke the jurisdiction of the Executing the Code of Civil Procedure, and not to invoke the jurisdiction of the the Code of Civil Procedure, and not to invoke the jurisdiction of the for such purposes. Court for such purposes.

10. In the present case, the petitioner– In the present case, the petitioner judgment debtor sought directions –judgment debtor sought directions to the decree holder to produce documents pertaining to the winding to the decree holder to produce documents pertaining to the to the decree holder to produce documents pertaining to the winding-up proceedings of the company. Such an application, in essence, amounts to enlarging proceedings of the company. Such an application, in essence, amounts to enlarging proceedings of the company. Such an application, in essence, amounts to enlarging proceedings of the company. Such an application, in essence, amounts to enlarging Executing Court the scope of the execution proceedings and indirectly inviting the Executing Court the scope of the execution proceedings and indirectly inviting the the scope of the execution proceedings and indirectly inviting the to adjudicate upon issues beyond the decree. The learned Executing Court to adjudicate upon issues beyond the decree. The learned to adjudicate upon issues beyond the decree. The learned ghtly held that such directions cannot be issued, and that if the petitioner claims rightly held that such directions cannot be issued, and that if the petitioner claims ghtly held that such directions cannot be issued, and that if the petitioner claims ghtly held that such directions cannot be issued, and that if the petitioner claims up, the burden lies upon him to produce the to be under liquidation or winding-up, the burden lies upon him to produce the up, the burden lies upon him to produce the to be under liquidation or winding relevant documents to substantiate such claim. relevant documents to substantiate such claim.

11. The observation of the Executing Court The observation of the at the decree was passed “in Executing Court that the decree was passed “in presence of both parties” appears to be an inadvertent expression, which, however, presence of both parties” appears to be an inadvertent expression, which, however, presence of both parties” appears to be an inadvertent expression, which, however, presence of both parties” appears to be an inadvertent expression, which, however, does not affect the core reasoning of the order. The dismissal of the application does not affect the core reasoning of the order. The dismissal of the application does not affect the core reasoning of the order. The dismissal of the application does not affect the core reasoning of the order. The dismissal of the application cannot compel was founded on the sound legal principle that the Executing Court cannot compel was founded on the sound legal principle that the was founded on the sound legal principle that the the decree holder to produce documents unrelated to the execution of the decree the decree holder to produce documents unrelated to the execution of the decree the decree holder to produce documents unrelated to the execution of the decree the decree holder to produce documents unrelated to the execution of the decree itself. Therefore, even if the decree was ex parte, the petitioner’s remedy lies itself. Therefore, even if the decree was ex parte, the petitioner’s remedy lies itself. Therefore, even if the decree was ex parte, the petitioner’s remedy lies itself. Therefore, even if the decree was ex parte, the petitioner’s remedy lies elsewhere and not before the Executing Court. elsewhere and not before the

12. jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory in nature The revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory in nature jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory in nature The revisional and can be exercised only where there is a manifest illegality, perversity, or failure and can be exercised only where there is a manifest illegality, perversity, or failure and can be exercised only where there is a manifest illegality, perversity, or failure and can be exercised only where there is a manifest illegality, perversity, or failure of justice. No such infirmity is made out in the impugned order. of justice. No such infirmity is made out in the impugned order. of justice. No such infirmity is made out in the impugned order. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) CR-7484-2025 (O&M) -5- Conclusion

13. , this Court finds no merit in the In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the , this Court finds no merit in the In view of the above discussion present revision petition. The learned Executing Court present revision petition. The learned has acted within its Executing Court has acted within its jurisdiction and has rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order 11 jurisdiction and has rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order 11 jurisdiction and has rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order 11 jurisdiction and has rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order 11 Rule 4 CPC. The impugned order dated 06.08.2025 Rule 4 CPC. The impugned order dated calls for no 06.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) calls for no interference. Regarding the impugned order dated 22.09. ing the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P 2025 (Annexure P-2)

14. judgment debtor has also challenged the subsequent The petitioner–judgment debtor has also challenged the subsequent judgment debtor has also challenged the subsequent The petitioner order dated 22.09.2025 2), whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior 2), whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner in the Division), Faridabad, dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner in the Division), Faridabad, dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner in the Division), Faridabad, dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner in the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent–decree holder. execution proceedings initiated by the respondent execution proceedings initiated by the respondent Brief facts

15. of the said order are that in the The brief facts leading to the passing of the said order are that in the The brief facts leading to the passing The brief facts leading to the passing judgment debtor raised execution petition filed by the decree holder, the petitioner–judgment debtor raised execution petition filed by the decree holder, the petitioner execution petition filed by the decree holder, the petitioner objections primarily on the ground that the execution petition was not maintainable objections primarily on the ground that the execution petition was not maintainable objections primarily on the ground that the execution petition was not maintainable objections primarily on the ground that the execution petition was not maintainable ning circumstances arising in the present form and was barred in view of supervening circumstances arising in the present form and was barred in view of superve in the present form and was barred in view of superve out of the company’s revival scheme sanctioned by the competent court. It was out of the company’s revival scheme sanctioned by the competent court. It was out of the company’s revival scheme sanctioned by the competent court. It was out of the company’s revival scheme sanctioned by the competent court. It was contended that the judgment debtor company had earlier been under winding up contended that the judgment debtor company had earlier been under winding up contended that the judgment debtor company had earlier been under winding up contended that the judgment debtor company had earlier been under winding up but was subsequently revived under a revival scheme sanctioned by order dated but was subsequently revived under a revival scheme sanctioned by order da but was subsequently revived under a revival scheme sanctioned by order da but was subsequently revived under a revival scheme sanctioned by order da 2002 passed in CA No. 944 of 2002 in CP No. 85 of 2001, subject to several 28.11. 2002 passed in CA No. 944 of 2002 in CP No. 85 of 2001, subject to several 2002 passed in CA No. 944 of 2002 in CP No. 85 of 2001, subject to several 2002 passed in CA No. 944 of 2002 in CP No. 85 of 2001, subject to several conditions. As per the said order, the company was directed to clear the dues of conditions. As per the said order, the company was directed to clear the dues of conditions. As per the said order, the company was directed to clear the dues of conditions. As per the said order, the company was directed to clear the dues of secured creditors such as the State Bank of India in instalments and to pay all secured creditors such as the State Bank of India in instalments and to pay all secured creditors such as the State Bank of India in instalments and to pay all secured creditors such as the State Bank of India in instalments and to pay all liabilities, including workmen’s dues, within a fixed time schedule. statutory liabilities, including workmen’s dues, within a fixed time schedule. liabilities, including workmen’s dues, within a fixed time schedule. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) CR-7484-2025 (O&M) -6-

16. It was argued by the judgment debtor that in terms of the said revival It was argued by the judgment debtor that in terms of the said revival It was argued by the judgment debtor that in terms of the said revival It was argued by the judgment debtor that in terms of the said revival scheme, the claims of the unsecured creditors could be considered only after the scheme, the claims of the unsecured creditors could be considered only after the scheme, the claims of the unsecured creditors could be considered only after the scheme, the claims of the unsecured creditors could be considered only after the settlement of dues of secured creditors, and that direct exe settlement of dues of secured cution by an unsecured creditors, and that direct execution by an unsecured creditor, such as the present decree holder was impermissible unless permitted such as the present decree holder, was impermissible unless permitted was impermissible unless permitted under the terms of the scheme or with leave of the court/tribunal supervising the under the terms of the scheme or with leave of the court/tribunal supervising the under the terms of the scheme or with leave of the court/tribunal supervising the under the terms of the scheme or with leave of the court/tribunal supervising the nce a revival plan or resolution is approved revival. It was further contended that once a revival plan or resolution is approved nce a revival plan or resolution is approved revival. It was further contended that o under the Companies Act or under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, all pre- under the Companies Act or under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, all pre under the Companies Act or under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, all pre under the Companies Act or under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, all pre existing claims stand to be dealt with within the framework of the scheme, and any existing claims stand to be dealt with within the framework of the scheme, and any existing claims stand to be dealt with within the framework of the scheme, and any existing claims stand to be dealt with within the framework of the scheme, and any dator or resolution professional creditor who fails to submit its claim to the liquidator or resolution professional creditor who fails to submit its claim to the liqui creditor who fails to submit its claim to the liqui within the prescribed period cannot maintain an independent execution thereafter. within the prescribed period cannot maintain an independent execution thereafter. within the prescribed period cannot maintain an independent execution thereafter. within the prescribed period cannot maintain an independent execution thereafter. On this basis, it was submitted that the continuation of the present execution On this basis, it was submitted that the continuation of the present execution On this basis, it was submitted that the continuation of the present execution On this basis, it was submitted that the continuation of the present execution y provisions of the proceedings was contrary to the revival order and the statutory provisions of the proceedings was contrary to the revival order and the statutor proceedings was contrary to the revival order and the statutor Companies Act, 2013, and the IBC, 2016. Companies Act, 2013, and the IBC, 2016.

17. 2014 The decree holder, in reply, relied upon the decree dated 21.04.2014 The decree holder, in reply, relied upon the decree dated 21 The decree holder, in reply, relied upon the decree dated 21 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its favour, whereby passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its favour, whereby passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its favour, whereby passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its favour, whereby the suit of the plaintiff–decree holder was decreed for the suit of the plaintiff ₹2,65,06,759.71, including s decreed for ₹2,65,06,759.71, including and interest at 12% per annum from the date of the principal sum of ₹75,92,721/- and interest at 12% per annum from the date of and interest at 12% per annum from the date of the principal sum of filing of the suit till the date of decision. It was submitted that the said decree had filing of the suit till the date of decision. It was submitted that the said decree had filing of the suit till the date of decision. It was submitted that the said decree had filing of the suit till the date of decision. It was submitted that the said decree had attained finality and was executable, and that the attained finality and was executable, and that was bound to the Executing Court was bound to enforce it as it stood. enforce it as it stood.

18. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing both sides and perusing the The learned Civil Judge, after hearing both sides and perusing the The learned Civil Judge, after hearing both sides and perusing the The learned Civil Judge, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, referred to the earlier orders, including the order dated 28.11.2002 passed record, referred to the earlier orders, including the order dated 28.11.2002 passed record, referred to the earlier orders, including the order dated 28.11.2002 passed record, referred to the earlier orders, including the order dated 28.11.2002 passed up/revival proceedings, and the judgment dated 21.04.2014 passed in the winding-up/revival proceedings, and the judgment dated 21.04.2014 passed up/revival proceedings, and the judgment dated 21.04.2014 passed up/revival proceedings, and the judgment dated 21.04.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. The Executing Court by the Hon’ble High Court observed that the Executing Court observed that the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) CR-7484-2025 (O&M) -7- Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while passing the decree, was evidently conscious of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while passing the decree, was evidently conscious of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while passing the decree, was evidently conscious of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while passing the decree, was evidently conscious of the fact that the judgment debtor company was under revival and that certain the fact that the judgment debtor company was under revival and that certain the fact that the judgment debtor company was under revival and that certain the fact that the judgment debtor company was under revival and that certain idator, as the said order itself proceedings were pending before the Official Liquidator, as the said order itself proceedings were pending before the Official Liqu proceedings were pending before the Official Liqu records that the plaintiff was granted liberty by the Punjab & Haryana High Court records that the plaintiff was granted liberty by the Punjab & Haryana High Court records that the plaintiff was granted liberty by the Punjab & Haryana High Court records that the plaintiff was granted liberty by the Punjab & Haryana High Court to proceed with its suit by impleading the Official Liquidator as a party. Despite to proceed with its suit by impleading the Official Liquidator as a party. Despite to proceed with its suit by impleading the Official Liquidator as a party. Despite to proceed with its suit by impleading the Official Liquidator as a party. Despite such liberty and opportunity, the defendant–judgment debto such liberty and opportunity, the defendant r chose not to appear judgment debtor chose not to appear before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which thereafter decreed the suit. before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which thereafter decreed the suit. before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which thereafter decreed the suit.

19. thus concluded that the question of insolvency, The Executing Court thus concluded that the question of insolvency, thus concluded that the question of insolvency, The up, or revival of the company had already been considered or impliedly winding-up, or revival of the company had already been considered or impliedly up, or revival of the company had already been considered or impliedly up, or revival of the company had already been considered or impliedly o account by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court while passing the decree. taken into account by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court while passing the decree. o account by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court while passing the decree. o account by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court while passing the decree. Consequently, the judgment debtor could not be permitted to reopen the same issue Consequently, the judgment debtor could not be permitted to reopen the same issue Consequently, the judgment debtor could not be permitted to reopen the same issue Consequently, the judgment debtor could not be permitted to reopen the same issue at the stage of execution. Once the decree had been passed by a competent court at the stage of execution. Once the decree had been passed by a competent court at the stage of execution. Once the decree had been passed by a competent court at the stage of execution. Once the decree had been passed by a competent court having jurisdiction, the Executing Court was duty having jurisdiction, the bound to execute the same and was duty-bound to execute the same and could not go behind the decree or question its validity on the basis of alleged could not go behind the decree or question its validity on the basis of alleged could not go behind the decree or question its validity on the basis of alleged could not go behind the decree or question its validity on the basis of alleged revival proceedings. The objections filed by the judgment debtor were, therefore, revival proceedings. The objections filed by the judgment debtor were, therefore, revival proceedings. The objections filed by the judgment debtor were, therefore, revival proceedings. The objections filed by the judgment debtor were, therefore, ed to proceed. dismissed, and the execution was directed to proceed. dismissed, and the execution was direct Findings of this of this Court

20. judgment debtor and Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner–judgment debtor and Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner upon perusal of the record and the impugned order, this Court finds no error in the upon perusal of the record and the impugned order, this Court finds no error in the upon perusal of the record and the impugned order, this Court finds no error in the upon perusal of the record and the impugned order, this Court finds no error in the reasoning adopted by the learned Executing Court reasoning adopted by the learned the petitioner that Executing Court. The plea of the petitioner that the revival order dated 28.11.2002 bars execution of the decree cannot be accepted. the revival order dated 28.11.2002 bars execution of the decree cannot be accepted. the revival order dated 28.11.2002 bars execution of the decree cannot be accepted. the revival order dated 28.11.2002 bars execution of the decree cannot be accepted. The record clearly demonstrates that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay was The record clearly demonstrates that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay was The record clearly demonstrates that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay was The record clearly demonstrates that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay was aware of the pendency of revival proceedings when it passed the decree dated aware of the pendency of revival proceedings when it passed the decree dated aware of the pendency of revival proceedings when it passed the decree dated aware of the pendency of revival proceedings when it passed the decree dated

21.04.2014. The plaintiff therein had obtained leave from the competent forum to 21.04.2014. The plaintiff therein had obtained leave from the competent forum to 21.04.2014. The plaintiff therein had obtained leave from the competent forum to 21.04.2014. The plaintiff therein had obtained leave from the competent forum to TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) CR-7484-2025 (O&M) -8- proceed with the suit against the company under revival. Therefore, the issue of the proceed with the suit against the company under revival. Therefore, the issue of the proceed with the suit against the company under revival. Therefore, the issue of the proceed with the suit against the company under revival. Therefore, the issue of the company’s insolvency or revival was already considered and does not survive for company’s insolvency or revival was already considered and does not survive for company’s insolvency or revival was already considered and does not survive for company’s insolvency or revival was already considered and does not survive for re-agitation before the on before the Executing Court.

21. It is settled law that the Executing Court It is settled law that the cannot sit in appeal over the Executing Court cannot sit in appeal over the decree or entertain pleas which challenge its validity or enforceability. The revival decree or entertain pleas which challenge its validity or enforceability. The revival decree or entertain pleas which challenge its validity or enforceability. The revival decree or entertain pleas which challenge its validity or enforceability. The revival order relied upon by the petitioner does not automatically extinguish the rights of order relied upon by the petitioner does not automatically extinguish the rights of order relied upon by the petitioner does not automatically extinguish the rights of order relied upon by the petitioner does not automatically extinguish the rights of ecreed by a competent decree holders whose claims have been adjudicated and decreed by a competent decree holders whose claims have been adjudicated and d decree holders whose claims have been adjudicated and d civil court, especially when such decree was passed after due leave from the civil court, especially when such decree was passed after due leave from the civil court, especially when such decree was passed after due leave from the civil court, especially when such decree was passed after due leave from the company court. Moreover, the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, company court. Moreover, the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, company court. Moreover, the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, company court. Moreover, the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, have no retrospective effect so as to nullify decrees passed prior to its 2016, have no retrospective effect so as to nullify decrees passed prior to it 2016, have no retrospective effect so as to nullify decrees passed prior to it 2016, have no retrospective effect so as to nullify decrees passed prior to it enforcement unless specifically covered by a resolution plan approved under the enforcement unless specifically covered by a resolution plan approved under the enforcement unless specifically covered by a resolution plan approved under the enforcement unless specifically covered by a resolution plan approved under the Code, which is not the case here. Code, which is not the case here.

22. has rightly held that it possesses Thus, the Executing Court has rightly held that it possesses has rightly held that it possesses Thus, the ’ble jurisdiction to proceed with the execution of the decree passed by the Hon’ble jurisdiction to proceed with the execution of the decree passed by the Hon jurisdiction to proceed with the execution of the decree passed by the Hon Bombay High Court. The objections raised by the judgment debtor are devoid of Bombay High Court. The objections raised by the judgment debtor are devoid of Bombay High Court. The objections raised by the judgment debtor are devoid of Bombay High Court. The objections raised by the judgment debtor are devoid of substance and were rightly rejected. substance and were rightly rejected. Conclusion

23. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional ccordingly, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional ccordingly, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional ccordingly, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 error in the impugned order dated 2) passed by the 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad. The order is well reasoned and learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad. The order is well reasoned and learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad. The order is well reasoned and learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad. The order is well reasoned and The revision petition, to the extent it challenges based on settled principles of law. The revision petition, to the extent it challenges The revision petition, to the extent it challenges based on settled principles of law. the said order, is dismissed. the said order, is dismissed. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) CR-7484-2025 (O&M) -9- Regarding the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure P Regarding the impugned order dated 2025 (Annexure P-3)

24. After the dismissal of the objections filed by the judgment debtor vide After the dismissal of the objections filed by the judgment debtor vide After the dismissal of the objections filed by the judgment debtor vide After the dismissal of the objections filed by the judgment debtor vide order dated 22.09.2025 2), the execution proceedings continued 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-2), the execution proceedings continued 2), the execution proceedings continued sion), Faridabad. The decree holder before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad. The decree holder sion), Faridabad. The decree holder before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Divi thereafter filed a list of properties belonging to the judgment debtor company for thereafter filed a list of properties belonging to the judgment debtor company for thereafter filed a list of properties belonging to the judgment debtor company for thereafter filed a list of properties belonging to the judgment debtor company for the purpose of satisfying the decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. the purpose of satisfying the decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. the purpose of satisfying the decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. the purpose of satisfying the decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. , vide impugned Upon consideration of the said list, the learned Executing Court, vide impugned Upon consideration of the said list, the learned Upon consideration of the said list, the learned order dated 08.10.2025 3), directed issuance of warrants of 08.10.2025 (Annexure P-3), directed issuance of warrants of 3), directed issuance of warrants of attachment against the property of the judgment debtor and further directed that attachment against the property of the judgment debtor and further directed that attachment against the property of the judgment debtor and further directed that attachment against the property of the judgment debtor and further directed that police assistance be provided to the decree holder for effective execution of the police assistance be provided to the decree holder for effective execution of t police assistance be provided to the decree holder for effective execution of t police assistance be provided to the decree holder for effective execution of t decree.

25. judgment debtor has challenged Learned counsel for the petitioner–judgment debtor has challenged Learned counsel for the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner the said order primarily on the ground that the same is consequential to the earlier the said order primarily on the ground that the same is consequential to the earlier the said order primarily on the ground that the same is consequential to the earlier the said order primarily on the ground that the same is consequential to the earlier illegal orders and that once the objections of the judgment debtor regarding illegal orders and that once the objections of the judgment debtor regarding illegal orders and that once the objections of the judgment debtor regarding illegal orders and that once the objections of the judgment debtor regarding ity and revival had been raised, the learned court ought not to have maintainability and revival had been raised, the learned court ought not to have ity and revival had been raised, the learned court ought not to have ity and revival had been raised, the learned court ought not to have proceeded to issue warrants of attachment. It is contended that the impugned order proceeded to issue warrants of attachment. It is contended that the impugned order proceeded to issue warrants of attachment. It is contended that the impugned order proceeded to issue warrants of attachment. It is contended that the impugned order is mechanical, without proper adjudication of the company’s financial position and is mechanical, without proper adjudication of the company’s financial position and is mechanical, without proper adjudication of the company’s financial position and is mechanical, without proper adjudication of the company’s financial position and herefore liable to be set aside. revival status, and therefore liable to be set aside. revival status, and t

26. Having considered the submissions, this Court finds no merit in the Having considered the submissions, this Court finds no merit in the Having considered the submissions, this Court finds no merit in the Having considered the submissions, this Court finds no merit in the contentions advanced. As discussed in detail in the foregoing paragraphs, the contentions advanced. As discussed in detail in the foregoing paragraphs, the contentions advanced. As discussed in detail in the foregoing paragraphs, the contentions advanced. As discussed in detail in the foregoing paragraphs, the objections of the judgment debtor regarding the revival scheme and maintainability objections of the judgment debtor regarding the revival scheme and maintainability objections of the judgment debtor regarding the revival scheme and maintainability objections of the judgment debtor regarding the revival scheme and maintainability een adjudicated and rightly dismissed by the learned of execution have already been adjudicated and rightly dismissed by the learned een adjudicated and rightly dismissed by the learned of execution have already b Executing Court vide reasoned order dated 22.09.2025 Executing Court . Once those objections 22.09.2025. Once those objections TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) CR-7484-2025 (O&M) -10- Executing stood rejected and no stay was granted by any competent forum, the Executing stood rejected and no stay was granted by any competent forum, the stood rejected and no stay was granted by any competent forum, the was legally bound to take further steps toward realization of the decree. was legally bound to take further steps towa Court was legally bound to take further steps towa

27. The issuance of warrants of attachment against the property of the The issuance of warrants of attachment against the property of the The issuance of warrants of attachment against the property of the The issuance of warrants of attachment against the property of the judgment debtor is a necessary and consequential step in the process of execution judgment debtor is a necessary and consequential step in the process of execution judgment debtor is a necessary and consequential step in the process of execution judgment debtor is a necessary and consequential step in the process of execution and cannot be termed illegal or irregular merely because the judgment debtor and cannot be termed illegal or irregular merely because the judgment de and cannot be termed illegal or irregular merely because the judgment de continues to dispute the decree. The Executing Court continues to dispute the decree. The has acted strictly in Executing Court has acted strictly in accordance with law and within the parameters of Order XXI of the Code of Civil accordance with law and within the parameters of Order XXI of the Code of Civil accordance with law and within the parameters of Order XXI of the Code of Civil accordance with law and within the parameters of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers it to attach property for satisfying an executable Procedure, which empowers it to attach property for satisfying an executable Procedure, which empowers it to attach property for satisfying an executable Procedure, which empowers it to attach property for satisfying an executable on to the Station House Officer to render police assistance is decree. The direction to the Station House Officer to render police assistance is on to the Station House Officer to render police assistance is decree. The directi equally justified to ensure effective implementation of the court’s orders and to equally justified to ensure effective implementation of the court’s orders and to equally justified to ensure effective implementation of the court’s orders and to equally justified to ensure effective implementation of the court’s orders and to prevent obstruction in the execution process. prevent obstruction in the execution process.

28. There is thus no jurisdictional error, perversity, or procedural There is thus no jurisdictional error, perversity, or proced There is thus no jurisdictional error, perversity, or proced irregularity in the order dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure P irregularity in the order dated 3) passed by the learned (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad. The said order is purely consequential Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad. The said order is purely consequential Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad. The said order is purely consequential Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad. The said order is purely consequential and flows logically from the earlier orders, which have already been upheld by this and flows logically from the earlier orders, which have already been upheld by this and flows logically from the earlier orders, which have already been upheld by this and flows logically from the earlier orders, which have already been upheld by this Court. Conclusion

08.10.2025 Accordingly, the challenge to the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 Accordingly, the challenge to the impugned order dated Accordingly, the challenge to the impugned order dated also fails, and the same is upheld. also fails, and the same is upheld. Final Conclusion Final Conclusion

30. For the reasons recorded above, all the three impugned orders dated For the reasons recorded above, all the three impugned orders dated For the reasons recorded above, all the three impugned orders dated For the reasons recorded above, all the three impugned orders dated

06.08.2025 (Annexure P (Annexure P-1), 22.09.2025 (Annexure P

08.10.2025 (Annexure P-2), and 08.10.2025 3) have been found to be well- (Annexure P-3) have been found to be well reasoned, legally sustainable, and -reasoned, legally sustainable, and in due exercise of its jurisdiction. The passed by the learned Executing Court in due exercise of its jurisdiction. The in due exercise of its jurisdiction. The passed by the learned TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) CR-7484-2025 (O&M) -11- Executing Court has rightly proceeded in accordance with law to ensu Executing Court re the has rightly proceeded in accordance with law to ensure the enforcement of the decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. enforcement of the decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. enforcement of the decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.

31. The present civil revision petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby The present civil revision petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby The present civil revision petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby The present civil revision petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

32. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. October 28, 2025 tripti 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document