MUKESH KUMAR vs ARCHANA SURJAN

Judgment text excerpt

$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 14th May, 2025 + EX.F.A. 13/2025 & CM APPL. 29163-29164/2025 MUKESH KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Ms. Simran, Ms. Sakshi, Advs. versus ARCHANA SURJAN .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner herein has suffered an ex-parte decree. 2. Decree Holder (respondent herein) filed an execution petition which was registered as Execution No. 47/2023. 3. The defendant/Judgment Debtor, however, filed an objection petition. When such objection petition was taken up by the learned Executing Court on 26.04.2024, issues were framed and the matter was fixed for recording of evidence by the judgment debtor. 4. The impugned order dated 25.04.2025 would indicate that no evidence-affidavit was filed by the Judgment Debtor and on previous occasion also, the Judgment Debtor had been granted last and final opportunity to lead evidence, failing which he would forfeit his right to lead evidence. 5. Since on 25.04.2025 also, the Judgment Debtor sought adjournment, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed EX.F.A. 13/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:16.05.2025 16:38:01 the learned Trial Court, finding that there was no reason to adjourn the matter, closed the opportunity of the objector to lead his evidence. 6. Simultaneously, since the Judgment Debtor had failed to lead its evidence, the objection petition was also dismissed and there was a direction for appointment of Bailiff for the purposes of executing warrant of attachment of movable goods of the Judgment Debtor. It is informed that the Bailiff has already been appointed and, in all probability, such warrant would be executed today itself. 7. Fact, however, remains is that there is no illegality or perversit