131 Supp HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No. 301/2025 CM No. 4715/2025 Ajaz Ahmad Bhat ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Tariq M. Shah, Adv. V/s Mohd Jaffar Bhat ….. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER 30.07.2025 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged execution proceedings initiated by the learned Principal District Judge, Shopian (hereinafter the Executing Court) against him as also order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Executing Court 2. It seems that a suit for recovery of Rs. 18.50 lacs came to be filed by the respondent against the petitioner under the provisions of Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code before the court of Principal District judge, Shopan. Vide order dated P a g e | 2 CM(M) No. 301/2025 CM No. 4715/2025 19.09.2023, the learned Principal District Judge, Shopian granted conditional leave to defend to the petitioner subject to deposition of 10% of the cheque amount within 10 days. However, it seems that the petitioner defaulted in depositing the aforesaid amount. Accordingly, on 12.12.2023 the learned District Judge passed a decree for recovery of Rs. 18.50 Lacs along with interest @ 6% per annum against the petitioner. The said decree came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of Regular First Appeal bearing RFA No. 15/2024 before this court. Vide order dated 06.03.2024, this Court set aside the decree passed by the learned District Judge on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs with the trial court within a weeks’ time to avail the leave to defend granted in his favour 3. It appears that when the petitioners failed to deposit the amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs within the period stipulated in order dated 06.03.2024 passed by this Court in RFA No. 15/2024, the learned District Judge proceeded to execute the decree. It also appears that on 07.05.2025, the learned District Judge while executing the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2023 relating to the recovery of the money, issued warrants of P a g e | 3 CM(M) No. 301/2025 CM No. 4715/2025 arrest against the petitioner. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing CM(M) No. 197/2025. This Court vide order dated 23.05.2025 allowed the said petition and left it open to the Executing court to proceed against the petitioner/judgment debtor in accordance with procedure prescribed under Order 21 Rule 37 of CPC. 4. It seems that after passing of order dated 23.05.2025 by this court, the learned Executing Court issued show cause notice to the petitioner and invited his objections. After considering the objections of the petitioner, the learned Executing court passed the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 whereby warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioner/judgment debtor for detaining him in civil prison. 5. The petitioner, has challenged the execution proceedings and order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Executing Court on the ground that the petitioner has complied with the condition of depositing of Rs. 2.00 lacs before initiation of execution proceedings. It has been further contended that the learned trial court, was mandated to pass fresh judgment/decree even if the petitioner had defaulted in making the deposit of P a g e | 4 CM(M) No. 301/2025 CM No. 4715/2025 Rs. 2.00 lacs in terms of order dated 06.03.2024 passed in RFA No. 15/2024. It has been contended that the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 is not in accordance with law inasmuch as the learned Executing Court has not considered the objections filed the petitioner against the show cause notice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused record of the case. 7. So far as the contention of the petitioner that he has deposited Rs. 2.00 lacs with the executing Court is concerned, it appears from a perusal of the documents placed on record by the petitioner, that the said amount has been received by the Executing Court on 20.06.2021. Vide order dated 06.03.2024 passed by this Court in RFA No. 15/2024, the petitioner was obliged to deposit an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs with the Executing Court within a weeks’ time from the said order but instead of doing so, the petitioner has admittedly deposited the said amount after about 3 ½ months. Therefore, the condition on which the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2023 passed by the District Judge Shopian was set aside, was admittedly not fulfilled by the petitioner. The P a g e | 5 CM(M) No. 301/2025 CM No. 4715/2025 consequence of this is that the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2023 stood revived. Thus the contention of the petitioner that no execution proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioner without passing fresh judgment and decree against him, is not tenable 8. The second contention that has been raised by the petitioner is with regard to the validity of order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Executing Court. In this regard, it has been contended by the petitioner that his objections to the show cause notice were not considered by the Executing Court before directing his detention in civil prison. 9. It is to be noted that on an earlier occasion, the Executing Court had vide order dated 07.05.2024 directed detention of the petitioner in civil prison without issuing show cause notice to him. This Court while interfering in the said order in terms of order dated 23.05.2025 passed in CM(M) No. 197/2025 had given liberty to the Executing Court to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Order 21 Rule 37 of CPC. It is not a case of the petitioner that show cause notice was not issued to him P a g e | 6 CM(M) No. 301/2025 CM No. 4715/2025 before passing of the impugned order dated 14.02.2025. His only grievance is that his objections were not considered. 10. If we have a look at the objections filed by the petitioner, he has only sought extension of time in depositing Rs. 2.00 lacs in terms of the order of the High Court and has not even extended his assurance before the Executing Court regarding satisfaction of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. It was not within the jurisdiction of the Executing Court to grant extension of time for depositing an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs as the said time was stipulated in terms of order passed by this Court. Therefore, on the basis of the objections filed by the petitioner before the Executing Court, no concession could have been extended to the petitioner. It is in these circumstances tht the Executing Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 directing detention of the petitioner in civil prison. Thus the learned Executing Court while passing the said order has adhered to the procedure prescribed under Order 21 Rule 37 of CPC. 11. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Executing Court. I also do not find any ground to quash the execution P a g e | 7 CM(M) No. 301/2025 CM No. 4715/2025 proceedings. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 30.07.2025 Aasif Whether the order is speaking Yes/No Whether the order is reportable Yes/No