IN THE COURT OF THE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-84)
COMM. EX. NO. 14/2020
BETWEEN:
M/S. S.L.V. DEVELOPERS … DECREE HOLDER
AND:
N. ROOPA … JUDGMENT DEBTOR
OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR TO THE
EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY THE DECREE HOLDER
UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 11 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
The Judgment Debtor most humbly submits as follows:
1. That the above Execution case is not maintainable either in
law or on facts. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed in-limine.
2. That, the Judgment and Decree dated 21.03.2020 passed by
this Hon’ble Court in COM.O.S.No.178/2019, wherein this
Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to try the above said Original
Suit, as the dispute does not come under the purview of the
Commercial Disputes under Sec. 2(1)(c) of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015. Hence the present execution case is not
maintainable.
3. That, the Memorandum of Understanding produced by the
Decree Holder in COM.O.S.No.178/2019 is not legally
enforceable nor the copy of the Cheques produced in
COM.O.S.No.178/2019 had not been issued for any legally
recoverable debt as alleged by the Decree Holder and it is also
pertinent here to mention that no cancellation of the
Memorandum of Understanding have been produced in support
of the averments of the Decree Holder in COM.O.S.No.178/2019.
4. That, the Judgment Debtor had not received any legal notice
from the Decree Holder or any information regarding the
institution of the above said suit filed by the Decree Holder from
this Hon’ble Court much less the suit summons or any notice. It
is pertinent to mention here that the Judgment Debtor had
appeared in C.C. No.57170/2018 after receiving summons from
the Hon’ble LVIII ACMM, Bengaluru and the said case was
dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, the Decree Holder had
intentionally had managed the process of issuance of summons
to the Judgment Debtor & with a mala fide intention of obtaining
an ex-parte Judgment & Decree from this Hon’ble Court, keeping
the Judgment Debtor in Dark and behind back of the Judgment
Debtor, though the Judgment Debtor had been residing in the
same address. The Decree Holder had obtained the ex-parte
Judgment and Decree with an ill intention to grab property of the
Judgment Debtor.
5. That, for various other reasons & grounds which are not
traversed herein and shall be made by the Judgment Debtor
during the time of arguments, the present execution case is not
maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
6. That, in the above said suit the Judgment Debtor has very
good case on merits on the original suit to oppose the vexatious
claim of the Decree Holder. If the above execution case is not
dismissed, the Judgment Debtor would be put to irreparable loss
& thus the Judgment Debtor will be put to great injustice. The
non-contesting by the Judgment Debtor in the original side is for
the bonafide reasons & not due to negligence or intentional.
7. Further it is submitted that, the Judgment Debtor has a prima
facie case & balance of convenience lies in her favour. If the
proceedings in the above case are dismissed no prejudice would
be caused to the other side, if not the Judgment Debtor will be
put to irreparable loss, which could not be compensated
otherwise.
WHEREFORE, the Judgment Debtor prays this Hon’ble Court be
pleased to dismiss the above execution case with exemplary
costs, in the interest of justice.
ADVOCATE FOR JDR JUDGMENT DEBTOR
(RAJKUMAR V.C.) (N. ROOPA)
VERIFICATION
I, N. ROOPA D/o. Late Sri.Nanjunda Rao, Aged about 40
years, Residing at No. 155, Gruhalakshmi Layout, 6th Cross, 2nd
Stage, Kamalanagar, Bengaluru-560079, the Petitioner in the
above case, do hereby verify and declare that what is stated
above in Para 1 and 7 are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.
BENGALURU
DATE: 03.09.2021 JUDGMENT DEBTOR
(N. ROOPA)
