Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Present first appeal from order has been filed challenging the judgment dated 11.02.2021 and decree dated 12.02.2021 passed by learned Judge, Commercial Court, Kanpur in Execution Case No. 32 of 2012 (M/s Ratan Housing Development Ltd. and another Vs. Kamal Raheja).
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that present execution proceeding is initiated by M/s Ratan Housing Development Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, therefore, for filing a case, resolution of company is necessary and further original resolution of company is necessarily required to put on record which is not available. He next submitted that earlier appellant has filed First Appeal From Order No. 2812 of 2010 before this Court which was decided on 31.05.2011 in which he has filed modification application, which is still pending for decision, therefore, learned Judge should not proceed with the matter and it is required on his part to allow his application No. 215 (Ga).
I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 11.02.2021 as well as other records available before the Court.
So far as first ground taken by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the same is not sustainable as the counsel for decree holder has taken specific case before the court below that the resolution of company is already available in record as Paper No. 28(Ga) and 212(Ga), which is neither disputed by learned counsel for the appellant nor rejected by the court below. So far as second ground is concerned, mere pendency of modification application before this Court cannot be a ground for allowing application No. 215(Ga) and defer the proceeding.
Even apart from that, appellant before the Court has earlier filed application under section 34 of Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 which was rejected. His objection under section 47 of C.P.C. has also been rejected and it is nothing but an attempt to delay the execution proceeding.
Therefore, this Court finds no good reason to interfere in the matter.
Accordingly, present F.A.F.O. is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.8.2021 Sartaj