1 2025:CGHC:26585 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 539 of 2025  Nutan Ispat And Power Private Limited (A Body Corporate Duly Incorporated Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956), Having Its Registered Office At - A-4, Fourth Floor, Farista Complex, Rajbandha, Raipur (C.G.) Through - Its Legal Head, Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, S/o. Shri B.N. Tiwari, Aged About 51, 1/267, Housing Board Colony, Kumhari, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Vikas Agrawal S/o. Shri Mohan Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o. Near Hanuman Mandir, Brihaspati Bazar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Rahul Agrawal Ex-Director Nutan Ispat And Power Private Limited, Presently R/o. Jarauda, Post - Tarra, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 23/06/2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner/ judgment debtor has challenged the order passed by the learned Third Additional District Judge, 2 Raipur (C.G.) in Execution Case No. 6-B/2021 dated 15.04.2025 whereby objection application filed by the petitioner under Sections 41 and 47 of CPC, 1908 has been rejected. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 instituted Civil Suit No. 4-B/2017 for recovery of Rs. 14,21,662/- against petitioner and it was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2019 by the learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.). He further submits that decree was transferred to the competent Court i.e. learned Third Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) for its execution. He contends that an objection was raised by the petitioner/ judgment debtor with regard to the constitution of company and to the effect that provisions of Order 21 Rule 12 of CPC have not been complied with as the certificate as required was not drawn by the Court to transfer it. Further, the description of suit property put for execution was not given appropriately. He further contends that learned Executing Court has decided the objection application in cryptic manner without touching the grounds raised by the petitioner. He prays for a direction to be issued to the learned executing Court to decide the application on merits. 3) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. 4) It appears that the Executing Court rejected the objection application moved by the petitioner on the ground that same has 3 been moved to delay the execution proceeding, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, order dated 15.04.2024 is hereby set-aside and the learned Executing Court is directed to decide the objection application so moved by the petitioner on merits on the next date of hearing and pass fresh order(s) accordingly. 5) It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner/ judgment debtor. 6) With the aforesaid direction(s), this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya