Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Executing Court's Order in Mahindra Finance Case

Court mandates fresh evaluation of application without reliance on previously submitted evidence.

In a significant legal development, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, J., has set aside an impugned order dated September 28, 2020, issued by the Civil Judge of Tissa, Himachal Pradesh. The case involves Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Limited and another versus Smt. Basanti Devi, focusing on procedural discrepancies in executing court proceedings.

The High Court found fault with the Civil Judge's reliance on evidence from a separate application under Order 21, Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) while deciding an application under Order 21, Rule 31 CPC. This reliance was directly contrary to the judicial instructions provided in a prior judgment, CMPMO No.45 of 2017, involving the same parties. The 2017 judgment explicitly prohibited using evidence from one application when deliberating on another.

Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Deepak Gupta, argued that the executing court's decision blatantly ignored the High Court's earlier directive, rendering the order legally unsustainable. Although the respondent's counsel, Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, attempted to defend the original order, he acknowledged the High Court's earlier ruling against such evidence consideration.

The High Court emphasized that the executing court's order demonstrated a lack of judicial diligence, as it failed to adhere to the High Court's prior instructions. Consequently, the High Court has directed the executing court to re-evaluate the application under Order 21, Rule 31 CPC on its own merits, allowing the judgment debtor to file necessary objections.

The parties are instructed to appear before the learned court on November 17, 2025. The High Court warned that failure of the decree holder to appear could result in dismissal for non-prosecution, while absence of the judgment debtor could lead to ex parte proceedings.

This decision underscores the importance of procedural adherence and the sanctity of judicial instructions, reinforcing that orders must be grounded in proper legal consideration without reliance on misplaced evidence.

Bottom Line:

Evidence led in an application filed under Order 21, Rule 32 CPC cannot be relied upon while deciding another application filed under Order 21, Rule 31 CPC, as per the judgment of the High Court in CMPMO No.45 of 2017.

Statutory provision(s): Order 21, Rule 31 CPC; Order 21, Rule 32 CPC

Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Limited v. Smt. Basanti Devi, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2794691