M/S. Musaddilal Bhagwat Swaroop Jewellers Private Limited vs. Mcgoverdhan Vyas (Died Per Lrs

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Musaddilal Bhagwat Swaroop Jewellers Private Limited, is the judgment debtor in a suit for eviction and recovery of money filed by the Respondents (decree holders/plaintiffs). The suit was decreed by the trial court, and the decree was upheld on appeal, though with modifications regarding the amount and interest. The Petitioner failed to comply with the orders of the High Court, including depositing arrears of rent and use and occupation charges. Consequently, the decree holders filed execution petitions (CEP Nos. 8 & 9 of 2021) seeking eviction and recovery of arrears. The Principal Special Court, Hyderabad, allowed these petitions, permitting attachment and sale of movable property and ordering eviction. The Petitioner has filed these Civil Revision Petitions challenging the order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the Special Court.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner, as the judgment debtor, could not be permitted to continue occupying the premises without paying any amount towards the arrears and/or use and occupation charges as assessed. The Court found that the Petitioner had failed to pay any part of the decretal amount despite previous orders and directions. The Court observed that the Petitioner had filed the present revision petitions solely to delay the execution proceedings on some pretext or the other, after failing to obtain interim orders from the Commercial Appeals. The Court found no reason to interfere with the execution proceedings, especially since the suit was decreed and possession was to be handed over. The Court dismissed the revision petitions, making it clear that the observations were only with respect to the impugned order and that the appeal (COMCA No.8 of 2019) would be decided on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court can attach and sell the Petitioner's movable property for the realization of the execution petition debt, as per Section 151 CPC and the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure? The Petitioner argued that the execution proceedings were being delayed due to the Petitioner's conduct and failure to comply with previous court orders, and that the Special Court was justified in ordering attachment and sale of movables to realize the decretal amount. The Petitioner contended that the Special Court had considered the Petitioner's conduct and the inevitability of eviction. 2. Whether the Court can order the eviction of the Petitioner from the suit premises? The Petitioner argued that eviction was inevitable given the Petitioner's conduct and failure to pay arrears and use and occupation charges. The Petitioner also noted that the Special Court had taken precautions in securing seized movables. The Petitioner argued that the Petitioner could not continue in the property without paying any amount towards arrears and use and occupation charges.