346-Day Delay Excused; Appeal Allowed Under Section 13(1A) Commercial Courts Act; Judgment Debtors' Affidavits Not Required

The court allowed the application for condonation of a 346-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the suspension of the limitation period during the Covid-19 pandemic. The appeal was deemed maintainable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as the orders were inconsistent with Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC. The court set aside the orders directing judgment debtors to file additional affidavits of assets, finding them unnecessary and intrusive. The Commercial Division was instructed to proceed with the execution of the decree lawfully. The appeal was disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Maintainability of the appeal.
3. Merits of the appeal, particularly the direction for filing affidavits of assets by judgment debtors.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The appellants attributed the delay of 346 days in filing the appeal to the suspension of the period of limitation during the Covid-19 pandemic and the illness of appellant no. 2. The respondent no. 1 did not seriously contest the application for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court had suspended the period of limitation vide orders dated 23rd March 2020 and 8th March 2021. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the appeal was considered on merits.

2. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The appeal was filed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The senior counsel for the appellants argued that the Commercial Division's orders were inconsistent with the provisions of the CPC and that the appeal was maintainable. The court considered the arguments and the relevant provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the CPC. It was concluded that the appeal was maintainable, as the orders were not in accordance with the prescribed procedure under Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC.

3. Merits of the Appeal:
The main contention was the direction to the judgment debtors to file additional affidavits of assets. The appellants argued that:
- The Commercial Division issued directions without any application from the decree holder and without the decree remaining unsatisfied for 30 days, as required under Order XXI Rule 41(2) of the CPC.
- The decree holder was already aware of the assets of the judgment debtors, and the arbitral award secured the decree holder by allowing possession of an immovable property until payment.
- The affidavits required by the Commercial Division contained extensive and confidential information, infringing on the judgment debtors' right to privacy.

The court found merit in the appellants' arguments and noted that the Commercial Division had spent over a year directing the filing of additional affidavits instead of proceeding with the attachment and sale of the assets. The court emphasized that the direction for filing affidavits should be issued only when necessary and in accordance with the specific provisions of the CPC.

The court also addressed the correctness of the dicta in Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd., which was the basis for the impugned orders. It was concluded that the directions in Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. could not be applied universally to all execution proceedings for money decrees, as they were beyond the scope of the court's powers under Section 151 and Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC.

Conclusion:
The impugned orders directing the judgment debtors to file additional affidavits were set aside. The Commercial Division was directed to proceed with the execution of the decree in accordance with the law. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.

---