Anita Sachedva And ANR. v. Anita Syal And ANR.






       




   








 



  ! 



"



!



# 



  

 $ %# $

  !& $  '#



 
  


 




 


 



 !& $  '#(  ) #*



 
 
 
  



!

"!

#"#$
%& 
'()

*

+  
,  
%,  
-  )
.


 
 

 
 
*

 

* 

 

& 


&

/ 



"$ #"#
%& 
')
 

*


 
%& 
'1)


$
++



 # 


  


 
 






*

₹31,48,700/- (₹18,30,639/- as principal amount and ₹13,18,061/- as interest @ 24% per annum) was filed *

3-4
  

 ',-
 





&


"$ 5& 

 

& 




-
*

5& 
+ 

.



 ',-



5& 
+ 

-

"$ # #"#
%& 
'$) 

 
$
++

 
 

&

/ 



 
*

 ',-

.

   

 
 

 
%& 
'6)

*





 


/ 



7  


 
2*



$
++

 
%& 
'!)
 
 

 



 
 
8





$
++



 ',-



 2*


 

* 

 

& 


/ 




 
 




& 
'0
9 





 
 

*

 

& 


/ 






 


 



 
  $ :



 


 




 


8 ;

.
 


 ',-

  *
 


5& 
+ 
*






 

*

 

& 


&

/ 



"$
:







 ',-






 



 
*

3-4 :




 

& 
  




- 

 

*


 

& 


&

/ 



*

 


+ 
 






+ 

.



 *


 


 


 


:







+ 

.


 
 *


/   

 
 






 

:












 

*


 
$
++


 


& 

+ 
 

 
 

& 
 

:
 

 
 

 
 


/ 

*
< *
4 
+ 

 



     

=       

  

!  "#$%&'

()*
/ 

*

+ , - .! /    

 0 

=, ! & 1  



.! /

"#0$%+ )
/ 

*

 
, 
+


+ 
. 2 2 .

  3 
 45!  - -!6  - 

 +

- 5' 
-"#  $ %/  !) 3


/ 

*

4 
+ 
 

 0*
 

= ( (   

72 "#3$%8  )0




/ 

*
 
+ 
.  
 


=7 2 8


- 

 8


-   "#%0).%. 2 )#.  3 *
 

=
!6 9 !

'6 9 ! ".  *  
 

= 6  9! 

 9

6 
-   "# %) 8+3






 


3-4







  *



*




*

 
+ 
:





 ',-




#
2 
#6
++


5& 
+ 

- 







 ',-






 
 
  



:

 








 
 

$
++

 


8


"

#"##





  
 


&

 .
 




 ',-

 *
* 

 
$
++

 

 

 



 


3-4 :


*
  
  







*

 


 

!


&

/ 






8


"$
2*

₹18,30,639/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum alongwith future interest @ 6% per annum was ordered to be made. The judgment records that the petitioners-JDs had duly been served. Be that as it may, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was preferred by the petitioners-JDs before the Courts at Ludhiana in January 2022. Prior to that, the petitioners-JDs put in appearance on 03.12.2021 before the Executing Court at Delhi where the execution petition had been transferred. An application under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC was filed before the said Court. At the same time, alongwith the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, an application for stay of operation and execution of the judgment and decree was also filed.

7.1 The petitioners-JDs have not placed on record interlocutory orders either of the execution proceedings at Delhi or that of the proceedings in the Order 9 Rule 13 application at Ludhiana. However, it has been stated by learned counsel for the respondents/DHs and not denied by learned counsel for the petitioners-JDs that issues in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC were framed as far back as on 10.11.2022 and no witness has been examined till date. What proceedings are going on in Delhi is also not known. The fact remains that the petitioners-JDs have preferred an application for stay both at Delhi and at Ludhiana. The fact also remains that the respondents/DHs are running from pillar 

 



"$ #"$

 




 


& 


:


8

 ',-

*
 
 

 


>





4?
&
+  

  




= +,-.

,+, !/

012134+ &-5+4

+13,0 +13 6,24/7

 )
*

)080.*  (

& 

 

 

 

  

 

 &

 
+ 

 



7  




 

*
 


 

.





/ 
 

*

 


 ',-




       %
!  )# , !  & 1     %
!  )# 5!  - -!6 

-  
 ( (     %
!  )# 


 




 


+ 
 


 4


 
  

 
+ 

 ',-






  
 
 




 ',-
 

 
  
@

 








 
 
 




 ',-

* 

  




 

*




 

*


 

 


 
$
++



  
 


&

 * 

&   
 

*


 
$
++



 
 
 

 

& 
  
 


 
 
 

 
$
++

 
 
4


 


 ',-

 


 

*

  



*



  
+ 



 
*
  *




 :
 


  





:


 
*
 


 


 

  *



)!& $  '#*

 



 
 
+
A
8  3
B3C
A

B3C