TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be an error apparent of the face of the record, justifying court to exercise his power of review under order XLVII rule 1 CPC. It is also settled position of law that in case of review, it must be remembered that it can be used for limited purpose and it s not an appeal in disguise. There is a clear distinction between erroneous decision and error apparent on the face of the record. When the court has specifically directed the judgment debtor no. 2 to file affidavit of asset, long back on 2nd April 2019 and also by subsequent order and when judgment debtor in spite of appearance did not bother to comply the same on the plea that such affidavit is not required to be filed in the present context, there are no mistake or error which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment debtor No. 1 before National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Branch (NCLT). Said IBC proceeding was eventually allowed on 19th July, 2017 resultantly moratorium under section 14 of the IBC also commenced from the same date and judgment debtor No. 2 was suspended from his directorship. Being aggrieved by the exception carved out in the moratorium order dated 19th July, 2017, in respect of proceeding pending before the High Court and Hon ble Supreme Court against the judgment debtor No. 1, Said Bank filed an appeal before NCLAT. Said appeal was disposed of by an order dated 14th September, 2017 clarifying that suits, if filed, before any High Court under original jurisdiction which is a money suit or suit for recovery against the judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Thereafter judgment debtor no. 2 still continue to be participated in the hearing but he could not appear before the court on 18th November 2022 on which date order impugned was passed. He further submits that no affidavit of asset needs to be filed by the judgment debtor no.2 and as such he prayed for reviewing the said order and/or suitably modifying the order, so that no warrant of arrest issued or executed or any legal action is taken against the judgment debtor. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the decree holder vehemently opposed the prayer for reviewing the order and contended that this court has given sufficient opportunity to the judgment debtor to file affidavit of asset but judgment debtor failed to comply the same a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eks from the date. Subsequently on 18th November, judgment debtor, while represented were again directed to submit affidavit of asset in terms of earlier order and it was further ordered that in default warrant of arrest may be issued against him. Such orders were never challenged. On the next day i.e. on 23rd November, 2022 judgment debtor No.2 was represented but did not file any affidavit of asset and accordingly the warrant of arrest was issued. Now judgement debtor s contention is in terms of explanation given by him as stated above there is no requirement to file affidavit of asset. When the court has specifically directed the judgment debtor no. 2 to file affidavit of asset, long back on 2nd April 2019 and also by subsequent order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
