[2025:RJ-JP:15758] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 25/2025 1. Raj Motors, Kutchery Road, Ajmer Through Its Partners, Vijay Garg And Renu Garg 2. Vijay Garg S/o Ramlal Garg, Resident Of Above The Active Workshop, Opposite Saumangalya Wedding Place, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Both Partners, Raj Motors, Kutchery Road, Ajmer. 3. Renu Garg W/o Vijay Garg, Resident Of Above The Active Workshop, Opposite Saumangalya Wedding Place, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Both Partners, Raj Motors, Kutchery Road, Ajmer. ----Petitioners Versus Rajkumar Huf, Through Itts Karta, Shri Rajkumar Lalwani, S/o Shri Swaroopchand Lalwani, R/o 4B Ashok Vihar, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Mittal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Reashm Bhargava, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 09 /0 4 /2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- judgment debtors (for short ‘the judgment debtors’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 14.01.2025 passed by Commercial Court, Ajmer in Civil Execution No.65/2024, whereby the application filed by the judgment debtors under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the judgment debtors submits that respondent-decree holder-plaintiff (for short ‘the decree holder- [2025:RJ-JP:15758] (2 of 4) [CR-25/2025] plaintiff’) filed a suit against the judgment debtors-defendants under Order 37 CPC. The said suit filed by the decree holder- plaintiff was decreed on 06.12.2021. Decree holder-plaintiff filed execution petition against the judgment debtors-defendants in which judgment debtors-defendants filed objections under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the judgment debtors-defendants submits that judgment debtors-defendants furnished security as per the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the trial court. In objections, judgment debtors-defendants stated that when the Judgment Debtors-defendants had already furnished security, the said properties cannot be attached and sold, but the executing court while passing the impugned order, observed that said security was not sufficient to satisfy the decree. Learned counsel for the judgment debtors-defendants also submits that executing court had committed an error in attaching all the properties of the judgment debtors-defendants. If these properties are put on auction for realization of the decretal amount, then the judgment debtors-defendants would suffer irreparable injury. So, order of the Executing Court be set aside and the executing court be directed to satisfy the decree from the security already furnish by the judgment debtros. Learned counsel for the judgment debtors-defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Ambati Narasayya Vs. M. Subba Rao and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.4195 of 1989 decided on 06.10.1989; (2) K. Vijayakumar Vs. N. Gururaja Rao in CRP No.6243 of 2003 decided on 13.04.2004; [2025:RJ-JP:15758] (3 of 4) [CR-25/2025] Learned counsel for the decree holder has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the judgment debtors-defendants and submitted that judgment debtors- defendants wanted to delay the execution proceedings and they had not fully complied with the order of the court. They deposited the demand draft of Rs.3,00,000/- in one matter. Learned counsel for the decree holder-plaintiff also submits that it is a prerogative of the Executing Court to satisfy the decree of the decree holder- plaintiff by auctioning the properties of the judgment debtors- defendants. If judgment debtors-defendants had bona fide intention then they could have deposited the entire decretal amount before the executing court and executing court would have released the property. So, order of the executing court does not want any interference. So, the present petition filed by the judgment debtors-defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the decree holder-plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) V. Ramaswami Naidu and Ors Vs. Syndicate Bank reported in AIR 1978 Madras 238; (2) Satish Minocha Vs. Punjab National Bank and Anr. reported in AIR 1983 Madhya Pradesh 42; (3) Khadar Baba Fancy Stores, Visakhapatnam Vs. G.P. Chit Funds Private Ltd,. Visakhapatnam & Ors reported in AIR 2008 Andhra Pradesh 274; (4) Sher Alam Vs. United Bank of India reported in AIR 1993 Gauhati; [2025:RJ-JP:15758] (4 of 4) [CR-25/2025] (5) Jatti Krishnareddy Vs. Bhadri Ramagopalaiah reported in AIR 1985 Andhra Pradesh 49; (6) Central Bank of India, Kutch Vs. M/s. P.R. Garments Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surendranagar and Ors reported in AIR 1986 Gujarat 113; (7) United Bank of Inida Vs. The New Glencoe Tea Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1987 Calcutta 143; (8) Gandharv Steel and Ors Vs. Central Bank of India reported in 2001 (103) Company Cases 612; I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the judgment debtors-defendants as well as learned counsel for the decree holder-plaintiff. It is an admitted position that suit filed by the decree-holder- plaintiff was decreed by the trial court. The judgment debtors- defendants do not want to honour the decree. So, executing court had no option but to attach the property of the judgment debtors- defendants for satisfaction of the decree. The contention of the judgment debtors-defendants that executing court could satisfy the decree from the security furnished to the trial court during trial, is not tenable because the said security is not sufficient for satisfaction of the decree. So, in my considered opinion, the executing court has rightly dismissed the objections filed by the judgment debtors-defendants. So, the present petition filed by the judgment debtors-defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /134