Controversy leading to the filing of the Revision Petition is in a very narrow compass. 

Respondent/complainant, the decree-holder, filed a complaint against M/s.HCL Service Point before the District Forum.  The said complaint was allowed by the District Forum on 22.10.2008.  The order of the District Forum attained finality.  Since the order was not complied with, the decree-holder filed an Execution Application before the District Forum in which the petitioner was not made a party respondent.  Later on, the respondent filed an application seeking execution of the warrants against the petitioner, M/s.HCL Infosystems Ltd.  District Forum allowed the Application and issued warrants of arrest against the petitioner.  Petitioner, after being served with the warrants of arrest, filed objections before the Executing Court, which were dismissed, aggrieved against which the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission along with an application to stay the order passed by the District Forum.  State Commission did not grant the stay, aggrieved against which the present Revision Petition has been filed.

On a contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was neither a party in the complaint nor in the Execution Application, Notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why the orders passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum be not set aside.

Counsel for the parties have been heard. 

M/s.HCL service Point, against whom the decree was passed by the District Forum, is a separate entity and the petitioner could not be asked to pay the money due from M/s.HCL Service point only because the name of the petitioner is in common with M/s.HCL Service Point.  Since the petitioner was not made a party respondent in the complaint and no decree had been passed against it, the decree could not be executed against the petitioner. 

Counsel for the respondent prays that the order passed by the District Forum directing the issuance of warrant against the petitioner be set aside and the case remitted back to the District Forum to enable the respondent to pursue its remedy against the judgement-debtor M/s.HCL Service Point (Respondent No.3 herein).

For the reasons stated above, the orders passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum are set aside.  It is held that the decree could not be executed against the petitioner, as it was not a party respondent in the complaint before the District Forum.  Since no decree had been passed against the petitioner, the decree could not be executed against the petitioner.  The case is remitted back to the District Forum to enable the respondent to proceed against the judgement-debtor M/s.HCL Service Point – Respondent No.3 herein.

The appeal filed before the State Commission is dismissed as infructuous.  State Commission be informed that the appeal filed by the petitioner before it has been rendered infructuous and dismissed as such.

Respondent, through its counsel, is directed to appear before the Executing Court on 13.4.2011, who shall thereafter proceed to pass an appropriate order in the Execution Application after due service on the respondent.