1 CHS588.09.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 588 OF 2009 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2009 IN AWARD DATED 9TH AUGUST 2007 Ramal Advani, proprietor of M/s. Advani Consultancy services. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Vandana Suresh Punwani. ... Defendant. And V.M. Talreja. ... Applicant. Mr. Rajiv Narula i/b. Jhangiani Narula & Associates for the Judgment Debtor. None for the Judgment Creditor. Mr. A.M. Talreja, the Applicant. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 02nd FEBRUARY 2011. P.C. :- The Applicant herein had filed Execution Application for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in view of certain consent terms which came to be arrived at by and between the Judgment Debtor and Judgment Creditor. In the said Execution Application, the Applicant took steps to have issued warrant of attachment. The said warrant of attachment was 2 CHS588.09.sxw issued. Before the warrant of attachment could be formally levied, the Judgment Debtor filed this Chamber Summons for following reliefs :- (a) That the above Execution Application No. 151 of 2009 taken out by the Applicant be dismissed and/or be set aside; (b) That the Warrant of Attachment issued in the above Execution Application No. 151 of 2009 be declared null and void; (c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above Chamber Summons, the warrants of attachment issued in the above Execution Application and all further proceedings therein be stayed ; (d) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c) above. 2. Said Chamber Summons was directed against the Applicant and therefore, the Applicant filed affidavit in reply opposing the said Chamber Summons. Today, the said Chamber Summons was taken up for hearing. In the course of arguments it became necessary for the Court to ascertain as to on the basis of which decree the Execution Application came to be lodged. Some explanation was sought to be 3 CHS588.09.sxw offered by the Applicant in person. 3. The Applicant pointed out that in the beginning the Judgment Debtor had given a cheque for Rs.30,00,000/- being cheque of September 2007. The Applicant claims that the said cheque was not deposited at the request of the Judgment Debtor. It is the case of the Applicant that another cheque dated 9th March 2008 was issued by the Judgment Debtor for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in favour of the Applicant and the said cheque got dishonored. According to the Applicant, a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was lodged by the Applicant and the said proceedings are pending. 4. In the course of arguments, I called upon the Applicant to point out to the Court as to which was the decree on the basis of which the Execution Application was filed. After making some arguments, the Applicant submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw this Execution Application with liberty to file a Summary Suit against the Judgment Debtor on account of dishonor of cheque dated 9th March 2008. 5. Learned Counsel Mr. Narule appearing on behalf of the Judgment Debtor submitted that the Judgment Debtor had to suffer the present Chamber Summons. The Judgment Debtor was required to engage an Advocate and that is how he was put to expenses for attending to the matter and to see that warrant of attachment should be cancelled and Execution Application should be dismissed. He submitted that if the 4 CHS588.09.sxw Applicant wants to withdraw this Execution Application, costs should be imposed upon the Applicant. 6. After having considered all the developments which have taken place and after hearing the Applicant in person about his submission to withdraw this Execution Application and after ascertaining that the said submission is made by him with full understanding particularly because the Applicant is a practicing Advocate of this Court. I have no objection to allow the Applicant to tender the endorsement on the Execution Application. He passed an endorsement today in the open Court under his signature by using following words :- “ I am withdrawing the Execution Application with liberty to file Summary Suit for recovery of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from September 2007.” Since by this endorsement the Applicant has showed his intention to withdraw the Execution Application, I am inclined to do so. So far as costs are concerned, I am inclined to impose token cost of Rs.100/-. 7. Hence, following order is passed :- (i) The Execution Application is allowed to be withdrawn. 5 CHS588.09.sxw (ii) The Applicant do pay to the Judgment Debtor token cost of Rs.100/-. (iii) Mr. A.M. Talreja, the Applicant to pay poundage charges within 15 days from today. 8. Learned Counsel Mr. Narula appearing for the Judgment Debtor states that the costs of Rs. 100/- has been received by his client. 9. In view of the aforesaid order, the Chamber Summons does not survive as the Execution Application has come to an end. Now, that the Execution Application has come to an end, the warrant of attachment issued in the aforesaid Execution Application stands revoked. The Chamber Summons stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)