The Delhi High Court in the case SPP Food Products Pvt Ltd vs India Overseas Co observed and has ruled that the process of the court cannot be utilized for the purpose of gathering information as to the whereabouts or the other information in respect of the judgment debtor.
The bench headed by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing the petition wherein challenging the order of the trial court that had rejected the application filed by decree holder, SPP Food Products Pvt Ltd, in the execution proceedings which are initiated against the judgment debtor, India Overseas Co.
The court in the case stated that it being the primary obligation of the decree holder itself to obtain such information from wherever it is possible.
In the present case, the decree holder in its application seek directions to the judgment debtor’s bank to produce the KYC and other relevant documents so as to be able to trace out the address or any additional information in regard to the judgment of the whereabouts of the debtor.
Further, it being the case of the decree holder that it has been unable to trace out the residential address of the judgment debtor, and that it has been trying for the last seven years in order to execute the decree, which was passed by the trial court in the year 2015.
It has also been argued before the court that the dismissal of the application by the trial court is contrary to the general law that the decree ought to be executed and reached its logical conclusion.
However, the court stated that there being no perversity, illegality or judicial impropriety displayed by the trial court in passing the said order.
Adding to it, the court stated that the process of the court cannot be utilized for the purposes of gathering information with regards to the whereabouts or the other information in respect of the respondent or the judgement debtor. Therefore, it being the primary obligation of the petitioner or decree holder itself to obtain such information from wherever it is possible.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the observations made by it shall not bind the decree holder from taking any other appropriate steps in order to execute the decree. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.
The counsel, Advocate, Mr. Bharat Arora appeared for the petitioner.