Heard the counsel for J.Dr. on the objection filed by them and also the counsel for D.Hr. The learned counsel representing the J.Dr. submitted that the D.Hr. has filed this petition against a wrong person in respect of card issued in his favour SBI Card Payment Payment and Service Pvt.Ltd., and J.Dr.2 are different legal entities, that J.Dr.2 has nothing do with the card Service the D.Hr. had with another legal entity. Therefore the order is not biding against J.Dr. and thereby producing a certificate of incorporation of J.Dr.2 and also a copy of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission passed in connection with similar submitted for dismissal of the execution against J.Dr.2.<br /> The learned counsel representing the D.Hr. did not dispute the objection raised by the counsel for the J.Dr.2, on the contrary he submitted that J.Dr.2 did not appear in the complaint, remained absent, therefore he cannot now take such a stand to deny the benefit of the order. We agree that the J.Dr.2 despite service of notice of the complaint did not appear and oppose the complaint, but that does not mean that J.Dr.2 who suffered an exparte order and if he is not the appropriate party to the proceeding even if he has suffered an order, still he can raise the legal and tenable objection in the execution to demonstrate that the order passed by this Forum is not binding on him. It is further found from the documents produced by the D.Hr. and D.hr. prior to filing of the complaint made several correspondences with SBI Card Payment and Service Pvt. Ltd. Gargoan and Delhi and issued legal notice to them and at no time he had corresponded the J.Dr.2. Therefore considering all these materials on record, which are not controverted, we are of the view that the order passed by in CC 86/08 is not binding against J.Dr.2, as such the execution petition filed against J.Dr.2 is dismissed.<br />