← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/3185/2015dismissed

Hari Singh v. M/S Escorts Finance Ltd And ORS

2015-05-12Mr Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain2 pages

Civil Revision No. 3185 of 2015 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3185 of 2015 Date of Decision: 12.5.2015.

Hari Singh .......Petitioner

Versus

M/s Escorts Finance Limited and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.2.2014 (Annexure P-3).

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. Impugned order dated 22.2.2014 (Annexure P-3) reads as under:- "I have heard learned counsel for JD No. 2 on the objections filed for rejection of the execution petition on the ground of jurisdiction. No doubt, the Award was passed at Delhi but since the JDs are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of Karnal, so the court at Karnal has jurisdiction to entertain and try this execution petition. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in Civil Revision No. 7592 of 2010 GURPREET SINGH 2015.05.13 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 3185 of 2015 -2titled as Indusind Bank Ltd. Versus M/s Bhullar Transport Company and another, wherein in that case, the similar view was taken. So in view the fact that the court at Karnal has the jurisdiction, the objection petition filed by JD No. 2 is hereby dismissed."

The learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order has based reliance on the decision of this Court in Civil Revision No. 7592 of 2010 decided on 15.11.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to cite any judgment to the contrary. Hence, the reasons given by the Trial Court while dismissing the objection petition filed by the judgment debtor, are sound reasons and the impugned order calls for no interference. Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE May 12, 2015 Gurpreet GURPREET SINGH 2015.05.13 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh