IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.779 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 12.05.2008 Gurmeet Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate vs. M/s.Boving Fouress Ltd. & ors. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of C.R.Nos.779 of 2007 and 780 of 2007 as both these revision petitions are inter-related and have been directed against the same order dated 2.11.2006 passed by the Executing Court at Malerkotla in execution application No.2 dated 5.2.2003 moved by the petitioner-decree-holder for recovery of more than Rs.8 lacs from the respondent-judgment debtors. Vide the impugned order dated 2.11.2006, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division)-cum-Executing Court, Malerkotla, has transferred the execution petition to the competent Civil Court at Bangalore after observing that the judgment debtors No.1 and 3 “do not own and possess any moveable or immoveable property within the jurisdiction of this Court as well as anywhere at Punjab.” It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that an C.R. No.779 of 2007 -2- application was moved before the Executing Court asking the judgment debtors to disclose the particulars of their moveable or immoveable properties within and outside the jurisdiction of the Court. No reply, however, was filed by the Judgment Debtor to the said application, therefore, there was no material whatsoever on record on the basis of which the Executing Court could form an opinion that the Judgment Debtors do not own or possess any moveable or immoveable properties within the jurisdiction of the said Court or anywhere in the State of Punjab. He further contends that the execution proceedings could not be transferred to the Court at Bangalore unless an application to this effect was moved by the petitioner-decree-holder as mandated by Section 39 CPC. There appears to be some substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that no reply to the above-stated application was filed by them. He, however, submits that in the event of remitting the matter to the Executing Court for deciding afresh, the judgment-debtor may be granted one opportunity to file such reply. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons aforestated, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 2.11.2006 is set aside and the learned Executing Court is directed to decide the application moved by the respondent-judgment debtors for the transfer of the execution proceedings to the Court at Bangalore afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the respondent-judgment debtor to file their reply, if any, to the application moved by the petitioner for C.R. No.779 of 2007 -3- directing the judgment-debtors to disclose details of their properties. Needless to say that the parties shall be at liberty to raise their contentions before the Executing Court who shall consider the same in accordance with law. For the same reasons, the second impugned order dated 2.11.2006 also cannot sustain and the same is set aside with a direction to the Executing Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, if so required. The Judgment-debtors are permitted to appear before the Executing Court through counsel on 3.6.2008, subject to the condition that on the very first date, they shall submit the list of their properties, as earlier directed by the Executing Court. May 12, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE