2025:HHC:36837 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.257 of 2022 Decided on 03rd November 2025 Ramesh Arya …Petitioner Versus Shriram Transport Finance and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Executing Court, in terms whereof, the objections filed by the present petitioner against the execution proceedings has been dismissed. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order passed by the learned Executing Court; this Court does not find any infirmity therein. 3. The findings returned by the learned Executing Court while dismissing the objections are quoted hereinbelow:- 2025:HHC:36837 2 “From the perusal of the award, it is transpired that a sum of Rs.18,56,846/- were financed by claimant for the purchase of vehicle number A/F to JD No.12. JD No.2 Sanjeev Kumar stood as guarantor for repayment. The JD No.2 Sanjeev Kumar was proceeded against ex-parte. From the perusal of the record it is also transpired that FIR has also been registered against Kiran Kumar, Balh dated 18.10.2013 under Sections 420, 120, 468 and 471 of IPC. The arbitrator has passed award against the JDs. Therefore, JDs have intentionally and deliberately conceal the fact that the vehicle was financed with Mahendra and Mahendra and has procured the loan from DH. In view of the fact and circumstances, the objection field by the JD is not maintainable, hence dismissed. Let warrant of attachment of immovable property be issued returnable for 29.12.2021. Steps be taken within 7 days.” 4. During the course of the hearing of these proceedings, it could not be demonstrated that the above mentioned findings were either contrary to the record or were in any other manner perverse as not being borne out from the record. 2025:HHC:36837 3 5. That being the case, as this Court is not exercising the Appellate jurisdiction under Article 227 and is only exercising the Superintending jurisdiction and as the view that has been taken by the Executing Court is a view, which was tenable on the facts before said Court; accordingly, as this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 03, 2025 (Vinod)