Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8319 (JK)

SHOWKAT RASHID CHOPAN v. MUBARAK MAJEED MIR

CM(M)/280/2025 · 2025-07-21

Sanjay Dhar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

S. No.149 Suppl.2 ,,,HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No.280/2025 \ SHOWKAT RASHID CHOPAN …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.Saleem Gul, Advocate. V/s MUBARAK MAJEED MIR … ..Respondent(s) Through : None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 21.07.2025 1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Handwara, whereby directions for attachment of immovable/movable property of the petitioner have been issued. 2. Heard and considered. 3. It appears that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. The said complaint came to be disposed of as settled in terms of award of Lok Adalat passed on 17.02.2004 on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, whereby the petitioner had undertaken to pay an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lacs fifty thousand) to the respondent. CM(M) No.280/2025 2 | P a g e 4. It seems that when the amount was not paid by the petitioner in terms of the compromise, the respondent filed an execution petition before the Court of Sub Judge, Handwara, who vide order dated 04.07.2025 has proceeded to issue warrants of attachment in respect of immovable/movable property of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/- alongwith interest. The warrant of attachment has been sent to Tehsildar concerned for execution. 5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that he is suffering from kidney failure, as such, he could not appear before the executing Court. It has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed by learned executing Court without hearing the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to show cause against the execution petition. 6. So far as the execution of compromise arrived at between the parties is concerned, the same is not in dispute and even the terms of compromise are not in dispute. A compromise arrived at between the parties before Lok Adalat takes shape of a decree of Civil Court and, as such, is executable as a decree of a Civil Court. 7. Order 21 Rule 30 of CPC provides the mode of execution of decree for payment of money. As per this provision a decree for payment of money can be determined by detention of judgment CM(M) No.280/2025 3 | P a g e debtor in the civil prison or by attachment or sale of his property or by both. 8. In the instant case the learned Executing Court has issued warrants of attachment of immovable/movable property of the petitioner for execution of award of Lok Adalat, which as already stated, is decree of a Civil Court. 9. So far as the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is concerned, in this regard it is to be noted that Rule 22 of Order 21 of CPC mandates issuance of show cause notice in case where an application for execution is made after more than two years of the date of decree, or the same has been made against the legal representatives of judgment debtor or the same has been made against assignee or receiver. 10. In the present case, the respondent had approached the Executing Court on 16.08.2024 for execution of award dated 17.02.2024 which is well within the period of two years. Therefore, there was no requirement of issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner before proceeding in the execution petition. 11. The contention of the petitioner that he is unwell and, as such, is unable to pay the decretal sum in one go, can be considered by the Executing Court once the petitioner enters his appearance before the said Court on next date of hearing. If and CM(M) No.280/2025 4 | P a g e when the petitioner approaches the Executing Court in this regard, the matter shall be considered by the said Court in accordance with law. 12. In view of the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 21.07.2025 Sarveeda Nissar 1. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 22.07.2025 18:07