2025:HHC:24995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 48 of 2019 Decided on: 29.07.2025 Sh. Vikrant Singh … Petitioner Versus Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Ms. Puja Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 20.11.2018, passed by learned Executing Court, in case No. 271-S/x of 2018, titled as SRTFC Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vikrant Singh and another, which reads as under:- “Today is the last opportunity for filing the objections. Objections not filed, but, an application on behalf of J.Ds for adjournment filed. This application has been opposed by Id vice counsel appearing for the DH. In this case, J.D No.1 has put appearance on 20.05.2018 and the service of the J.Ds was completed on 01.06.2018. Thereafter, four effective 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:24995 opportunities have been granted for filing the objections. Objections not filed. Further adjournment is not justifiable for that purpose, as such, the application for adjournment is considered and dismissed. Be tagged with main case file, after due completion and registration. The right of the J.Ds to file the objections is closed by the orders of the court. The case is now adjourned for filing the list of property of J.Ds, to come up on 03.01.2019.” 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court does not find any reason to interfere therewith. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the findings returned by the learned Court below that despite four effective opportunities having been granted to the petitioner to file the objections to the execution petition, the same were not filed, are perverse and not borne out from the record of the case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that as despite reasonable opportunities having been granted to the present petitioner/J.D. to file objections to the execution petition, he failed to do the needful, learned Court below rightly closed the right of the J.D. to file the objections. 4. Accordingly, as this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is accordingly dismissed. Interim 3 2025:HHC:24995 order dated 31.01.2019, passed in CMP No. 1088 of 2019 stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 29, 2025 (narender)