Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court disposed of the execution first appeal as “not pressed” after the appellant expressed his intention to withdraw the petition. However, the Court made several crucial clarifications:
- It directed that the attachment warrants issued by the Executing Court shall remain in abeyance for ten days.
- It permitted the appellant to deposit ₹2,00,000 within ten days with the Executing Court.
- The Court clarified that the civil decree would not influence the ongoing criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
“The learned Criminal Court would decide the criminal complaint, without being influenced with the outcome of the abovesaid civil suit.”
Facts
- The appellant had suffered a summary decree for ₹9,50,000 with 6% per annum interest due to failure to submit a written appearance within the prescribed period.
- Although the appellant appeared before the trial court after service of summons on 30.03.2024, he did not formally file an appearance, resulting in the ex parte decree.
- He blamed this lapse on his advocate’s failure and has lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of Delhi.
- An execution petition was subsequently filed by the decree holder, and the appellant filed objections under Section 47 CPC.
- The Executing Court dismissed the objections on 09.05.2025 and issued warrants of attachment against the appellant’s immovable property in West Sagarpur, New Delhi.
- The appellant submitted that the decree should not be seen as an admission in the criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act, which are based on the same cheque and are still pending.
- He also expressed willingness to pay the entire decretal amount in 4–5 months and offered to deposit ₹2,00,000 within ten days.
Issues
- Whether the execution of the decree can be challenged by the appellant under Section 47 CPC.
- Whether the decree passed in the summary suit would amount to an admission in the parallel criminal proceedings.
- Whether the attachment warrant should be kept in abeyance considering the appellant’s offer to pay.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The appellant contended he was unaware of the requirement for a written appearance, which led to an ex parte decree.
- He argued that he had a meritorious defence, having already returned the cheque amount, and that the decree should not have been passed.
- He claimed victimization due to the negligence of his counsel, against whom a complaint was filed.
- He expressed his willingness to clear the decretal amount within 4–5 months and sought to withdraw the appeal.
- He requested that the decree not be considered an admission in the criminal proceedings.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Despite advance notice, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent/decree holder before the High Court.
Analysis of the Law
- The High Court exercised its discretion under the civil appellate jurisdiction and took note of the appellant’s bona fides.
- It addressed the procedural irregularity (failure to file appearance in a summary suit), while balancing the rights of the decree holder by ensuring conditional relief.
- It reinforced the principle of independence of civil and criminal proceedings, especially in cheque bounce cases under Section 138 NI Act.
Precedent Analysis
No judicial precedents were expressly cited in the judgment. However, the High Court implicitly applied established principles of law:
- Independence of civil and criminal proceedings.
- Equitable relief in execution matters based on bona fide conduct.
Court’s Reasoning
- The appellant’s offer to pay and his lack of intent to press the appeal was treated as a bona fide gesture.
- The Court reasoned that since the appellant’s version was never considered in the civil suit, the Criminal Court should independently evaluate the evidence in the Section 138 NI Act complaint.
- The stay on attachment was granted in light of the payment undertaking.
“This Court also expects that in terms of the statement which has been made today, the appellant, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, also clears the entire decretal amount within the abovesaid undertaken period of 4–5 months.”
Conclusion
- Petition dismissed as not pressed.
- Attachment warrants stayed for ten days.
- Appellant directed to deposit ₹2,00,000 within ten days.
- Entire decretal amount to be paid within 4–5 months.
- Criminal Court not to treat civil decree as admission of guilt.
Implications
- Reinforces that a civil decree in a summary suit cannot automatically be treated as an admission in criminal prosecution under Section 138 NI Act.
- Provides relief to litigants who may have suffered decrees due to procedural lapses without a hearing on merits.
- Encourages settlement by allowing a limited window for voluntary compliance to prevent harsh execution measures like attachment.