Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ms. Sumita Abhishek Sundaram, is the decree-holder in a commercial execution proceeding (Com. Ex. 541 of 2024) pending before the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bangalore. She filed an application I.A.No.III under Order XXI Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking a direction to the respondent, Sankalpan Infrastructure Private Limited (the judgment-debtor), to file an affidavit disclosing particulars of its assets, including immovable and movable properties, bank accounts, stock holdings, deposits, and investments. The Commercial Court dismissed the application by order dated 04-11-2024. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, reserved the matter on 18-07-2025 and pronounced the judgment on 30-07-2025. The court examined the mandatory nature of Order XXI Rule 41 CPC, which requires a judgment-debtor to file an affidavit of assets upon the decree-holder's application. The court found that the Commercial Court had erred in dismissing the application without considering the mandatory provision. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the judgment-debtor to file the affidavit of assets within a specified period.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Order XXI Rule 41 CPC - Affidavit of Assets - The court considered whether the Commercial Court erred in dismissing the decree-holder's application for a direction to the judgment-debtor to file an affidavit of assets. The High Court held that Order XXI Rule 41 CPC is mandatory and the judgment-debtor is bound to disclose its assets. The impugned order was set aside and the application was allowed. (Paras 1-10)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Supervisory Power - The petitioner invoked Article 227 to challenge the order of the Commercial Court. The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to correct the error of the lower court. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commercial Court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC seeking a direction to the judgment-debtor to file an affidavit of particulars of its assets.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 04-11-2024 passed by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bangalore in Com. Ex. 541 of 2024, and directed the respondent/judgment-debtor to file an affidavit of particulars of its assets as sought in I.A.No.III under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC.
Law Points
- Order XXI Rule 41 CPC is mandatory
- judgment-debtor must file affidavit of assets
- execution proceedings
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Commercial Court
- decree-holder's right to asset disclosure
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (07) 18
Writ Petition No.35715 of 2024 (GM - CPC)
Sri Aditya Chatterjee, Ms. Sanjana Muraleedharan, Ms. Akhila Balaji (for petitioner); Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sri Nandish Shenni (for respondent)
Ms. Sumita Abhishek Sundaram
Sankalpan Infrastructure Private Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Commercial Court in execution proceedings.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the order dated 04-11-2024 passed by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bangalore in Com. Ex. 541 of 2024, and a direction to the respondent to file an affidavit of assets under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC.
Filing Reason
The Commercial Court dismissed the petitioner's application I.A.No.III under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC seeking a direction to the judgment-debtor to disclose its assets.
Previous Decisions
The Commercial Court dismissed the application for asset disclosure by order dated 04-11-2024.
Issues
Whether the Commercial Court was justified in dismissing the application under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC seeking a direction to the judgment-debtor to file an affidavit of assets.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that Order XXI Rule 41 CPC is mandatory and the judgment-debtor must file an affidavit of assets upon application by the decree-holder.
The respondent opposed the application, but the judgment does not detail their specific arguments.
Ratio Decidendi
Order XXI Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is mandatory in nature and requires the judgment-debtor to file an affidavit disclosing its assets upon the decree-holder's application in execution proceedings. The Commercial Court erred in dismissing such an application without considering the mandatory provision.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner/decree-holder is before this Court calling in question an order dated 04-11-2024 passed by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bangalore in Commercial Execution No.541 of 2024 by which the application I.A.No.III filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC seeking a direction to the respondent to file an affidavit of particulars of its assets including but not limited to immovable, movable properties, bank accounts with balance, stock holdings, deposits and other investments, garnishees.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Commercial Execution No.541 of 2024 before the Commercial Court. She filed I.A.No.III under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC for asset disclosure. The Commercial Court dismissed the application on 04-11-2024. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court reserved orders on 18-07-2025 and pronounced judgment on 30-07-2025, allowing the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXI Rule 41
- Constitution of India: Article 227
