1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.350 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.967 OF 2008 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.173 OF 2008 IN HYDERABAD O.SUIT NO.80 OF 2004 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3030 OF 2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3415 OF 2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3504 OF 2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1202 OF 2009 Power Horse India Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Hamsons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and others .. Respondents ......... Mr.J.D.Dwarkadas, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Rahun Narichania i/b.M/s.Desai Desai and Carrimjee, for appellant. Mr.Y.H.Muchhala, Sr.Advcate, Mr.Sagheer Khan, Mr.Farooq Chaudhary, Mr.Javed Patel, Mr.Asgarali Attarwala i/b.M/s.Judicare Law Associates, for respondent No.1. ......... CORAM : J.N. PATEL & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,JJ DATE : 20TH JULY, 2009 2 P.C. : 1] Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 7 th August, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to raise attachment in Execution Application No.173 of 2008 in Hyderabad Suit No.80 of 2004. 2] The respondent, decree holder got the decree in Hyderabad Suit No.80 of 2004 transferred to Bombay for execution under Order XXI Rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment debtors as described in the decree are (i) M/s.Power Horse Middle East. Co. W.L.L. (a subsidiary of M/s.SPITZ KG, Austria), (ii)M/s.Power Horse India ( the India Division of Power house Middle east Company WLL) and (iii)M/s.Maluram Enterprises. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that “M/s.Power Horse India Pvt. Ltd.” is an entitiy completely separate from judgment debtor no.2. Our attention was drawn to the description of judgment debtor No.2 in the execution application and submitted that the decree holder has altered the name in Column No.I of the Execution Application. The name of judgment debtor no.2 is altered to “M/s.Power Horse Indian alias M/s.Power Horse India Pvt. Ltd.” It is further submitted that “M/s.Power Horse India alias” and “Pvt. Ltd.” in the name have been added by hand which words are not found in the description in the 3 original decree. Resultantly, the order of attachment as issued cannot be sustained. On the other hand, it has been contended by respondent decree holder that actually there is no difference between judgment debtor No.2 in the decree and the present appellant. They are alleged to be one and the same, and therefore, the order does not any require interference. 3] Considering the contentions raised we called for the Record and Proceedings in Execution Application No.173 of 2008. Perusal of the record, prima facie, substantiates the contention raised by the appellants. Therefore, we are of the view that the execution Court should re-examine the matter afresh on the issue whether the decree can be executed against the appellants who were not parties to the Hyderabad Suit. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has not taken into account this glaring aspect of the matter. Therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 7 th August, 2008 and remit the matter for fresh hearing. In the intergnum period, the order of attachment shall continue to operate. However, no further steps in execution will be taken by the respondent decree holder till the execution Court decides the Application. All issues and contentions raised by both sides are kept open for consideration of the execution Court. 4 4] With the above order, Appeal stands disposed. In view of disposal of Appeal, the Notice of Motion Nos.3030 of 2008, 3415 of 2008, 3504 of 2008 and 1202 of 2009 are disposed off as infructuous. (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, J.) ( J.N.Patel, J.)