IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS. PRAGATI RANA, LD.

CIVIL JUDGE, AT GURUGRAM

IN THE MATTER: -

NSM Polymers Pvt Ltd Vs. Al Paper House Etc.

Case Details:-
Case no.:- CM/79/2020

REPLY TO SECTION 47 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE,

1908 APPLICATION

Most Respectfully Showeth,

The Decree Holder most respectfully submits as under:

That, the Judgment Debtor argues that the Execution Petition is

not maintainable and has based this argument on various
frivolous grounds. Following are the replies to all the grounds
taken by the Judgment Debtor in his application:

1. On receiving Legal Notice from the Decree Holder the

Judgment Debtor tried intimidate the plaintiff over phone
but did not care to come to court or file an application under
O.9 R.13 for correcting his name. It is at the very last
moment when they see court is going to make them pay that
they appear.

2. It was the visiting card of the judgment debtor, relying on

which the previous counsel held the judgment debtor to be a
company. The error could have been corrected then itself
 had the judgment debtor cared to visit the court on receiving
summons instead acknowledging the summons by
intimidating Decree Holder over the phone.

3. The reason for suing AL Paper House through Imran Khan

and Imran Khan separately was because
 Imran Khan was sole person Decree Holder was in
contact with from the business entity.
 Imran Khan is proper party to the suit and by making
him party to the suit, the decree holder would help in
a better and faster disposal of the case.
 All the business-related communication used to take
place through Imran Khan
 All the financial transactions used to take place via
the account which has been requested to be attached
in the execution petition.
 The visiting card Imran Khan handed over to the
Decree Holder after their first meeting mentioned
Imran Khan to be the Director of Sales of AL Paper
House.

4. All the proofs of transaction have been put forward, which

have not been denied. The judgment debtor nowhere alleges
that they didn’t have any liability.

5. The decree holder provided the best identification of the

judgment debtor from his knowledge. The judgment debtor
had been aware of this mistake since very start and was
clever in not getting it rectified at the very start or at any
time later.
6. The Business Entity AL Paper House is a sole proprietary as
per the contentions of Mr. Abul Hasan in application filed
under S.47 CPC but was mentioned as a company in the
Decree Holder’s recovery suit. There might be an ambiguity
with regard to the nature of the entity but one thing that is
consistent and same in both of these is:
 The address i.e., Near tempo Stand, Sanganer –
302029 Jaipur (Raj) through its Director Sales Imran
Khan
 The contact number i.e., +91-141-2731796
 The bank account i.e., Bank of India, 35m, Opp.
Nagarpali, Sanganer Town, Jaipur-303902 (Raj) freeze
account no. 660130100000002
 The owner i.e., Late Mr. Abdul Latif Kagzi and now his
son Mr. Abul Hasan

7. This Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to correct any

clerical mistake in the judgment or decree arising from any
accidental slip or omission at any time either of its own
motion or on the application of any of the parties under
S.152 of CPC. In Pratibha Singh v. Shanti Devi Prasad,
(2003) 2 SCC 330, there was a failure on part of the plaintiffs
to give correct, specific and exact description of the
immovable property forming the subject-matter of suit and
the Supreme Court held that:

“17. When the suit as to immovable property has been

decreed and the property is not definitely identified,
the defect in the court record caused by overlooking of
 provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 3 and Order 20
Rule 3 CPC is capable of being cured. After all a
successful plaintiff should not be deprived of the fruits
of decree. Resort can be had to Section 152 or Section
47 CPC depending on the facts and circumstances of
each case — which of the two provisions would be
more appropriate, just and convenient to invoke.
Being an inadvertent error, not affecting the merits of
the case, it may be corrected under Section 152 CPC
by the court which passed the decree by supplying the
omission. Alternatively, the exact description of
decretal property may be ascertained by the executing
court as a question relating to execution, discharge or
satisfaction of decree within the meaning of Section 47
CPC. A decree of a competent court should not, as far
as practicable, be allowed to be defeated on account of
an accidental slip or omission. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, we think it would
be more appropriate to invoke Section 47 CPC.”

It is a well-settled position now that orders can be amended

so as to carry out the true intention of the court when the
order was made. In the words of Bowen L.J. in
Mellor v. Swira (1885) 30 ChD 239, which have also been
relied upon by our Hon’ble Supreme Court in various
judgments:
“Every court has inherent power over its own records
so long as those records are within its power and that
it can set right any mistake in them. An order even
when passed and entered may be amended by the
 court so as to carry out its intention and express the
meaning of the court when the order was made”.

8. Therefore, the allegations raised by Judgment Debtor do not

serve a ground for delaying the execution of decree any
further and thus the application is liable to be dismissed.

PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that:

a. This Hon’ble Court shall completely reject the application

filed under Section 47 by the Judgment Debtor.
b. This Hon’ble Court shall not interfere with the Order
regarding the attachment of the bank account of the
judgment debtor.
c. This Hon’ble Court shall pass any such other/further order
which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice equity and good conscience.

Dated:13.07.2023 Decree Holder

Through Counsel: -

Yash Yadav
Advocate,
Enrl. No. D/6816/2022
+91 9990718885