15-01-2015 - Heard Mr. Ranjan Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2.       This Revision petition has been filed by the Jt.Dr. No.1/ petitioner against the orders dated 8.8.2013 and 20.4.2014 passed by learned District Forum, Deoghar in Execution Case No. 8/2003 arising out of C.C. No. 89/1998 whereby and whereunder warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner for compliance of the judgement dated 1.5.2005 passed in the said C.C. Case and also in view of the judgement dated 7.8.2003 passed by this Forum in F.A. No. 248/2003. It appears that Jt. Dr. No.1- B.K. Auto Service lost up to the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 15.4.2004 passed in Revision petition No. 818/ 2004.

3.       It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his father Kapildev Singh was the proprietor of B.K. Auto Service who died on 4.12.2006. The B.K. Auto Service Agency was closed in the year 2000 and therefore in the service report dated 28.10.2003 also B.K. Auto Service was shown as closed. The petitioner was made party wrongly by the Certificate Officer as he has got no concern with B.K. Auto Agency. Petitioner appeared on 24.7.2012 and prayed for recalling/ staying warrant of arrest issued against him and accordingly the same was stayed by order dated 24.7.2012 but it was recalled by the impugned order on 8.3.2013 on the ground that the petitioner was adopting the delaying tactics. Again warrant of arrest was issued by the other impugned order dated 20.2.2014.

4.       Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he has got no interest/ connection with B.K. Auto Service Agency which was closed from the year 2000 and it’s proprietor- father of the petitioner died in the year 2006; and that the liability on B.K. Auto Service Agency is not a personal liability of the   petitioner.

5.       After hearing Mr. Sinha at length and carefully going through the records, we do not find any merit in this revision petition. It appears from the order dated 13.1. 2009 passed in the said Execution Case, that the records of the Execution Case was sent back to the Certificate Officer, where the petitioner was made party and he appeared also. Then the records were sent back to the Executing Forum. Then, after issuance of warrant of arrest, the petitioner appeared on 24.2.2012. On his undertaking that the will abide by the direction/ order passed by the Forum, the warrant of arrest was stayed on 3.7.2012. Then the petitioner neglected to appear on several dates. Ultimately by the impugned order dated 8.3.2013 his application was rejected and he was directed to comply with the orders of the Forum. When again the petitioner failed and neglected to comply with the orders, warrant of arrest was issued by the impugned order dated 20.4.2014. It is clear that on one or the other pretext, the petitioner has been delaying the execution.

            In the facts and circumstances noticed above, this revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

                    Ranchi,

                   Dated:-15-01-2015