IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4484 of 1994(O&M) Date of Decision: January 14, 2011. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. ...... PETITIONER Versus Transport Corporation of India Ltd. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) against order dated 29.04.1994 passed by the then learned Sub Judge First Class, Chandigarh in execution petition filed by the present revision petitioner vide which objection petition filed under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 58 CPC by the respondent was allowed and the execution petition was dismissed. CR No. 4484 of 1994 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision are that, the present petitioner i.e. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited had filed civil suit against respondent i.e. Transport Corporation of India Limited. During the pendency of the said suit a compromise was effected between the parties in terms of agreements Mark A and Mark B. The suit was decreed by learned trial Court as per Mark A and Mark B while making Mark A and Mark B as part of the decree. The suit as per compromise was decreed on 18.03.1985. Pursuant to the said judgment and decree an execution application No.56 of 1985 was filed by the present petitioner-decree holder. Respondent-Judgment Debtor raised objection regarding maintainability of the execution petition and the objection petition was dismissed on 13.11.1990 by learned executing Court. Respondent-JD preferred civil revision before this Court against the said order. This Court vide order dated 15.04.1991 allowed the civil revision of respondent-JD. The operative part of the order passed by this Court in the said civil revision No.74 of 1991 reads as under:- “This matter is clearly linked with the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree as provided under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code and it can be determined only by the Court executing the decree. Learned Executing Court was not right in saying that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. As noticed earlier, Mark A and Mark B formed part of the agreement which contained obligations on both sides and the performance of which has now become impossible because of 2 CR No. 4484 of 1994 the passing of the winding up order against HDL. IF HSIDC is not in a position to perform its obligations under the agreement, then how the Executing Court can force TCI to perform its obligations under the execution of the decree. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the execution of the decree is not maintainable. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the Executing Court is set aside but with no order as to costs.” Aggrieved by the said order dated 15.04.1991 passed by this Court, petitioner-decree holder filed Special Leave Petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Vide order dated 17.11.1992, the said SLP was also dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court and hence, the order of this Court dated 15.04.1991 became final vide which it was held that execution of the decree was not maintainable. Petitioner-decree holder again filed execution application No.81 dated 20.07.1993 i.e. the instant execution petition alleging that this Court vide order dated 15.04.1991 held non-maintainability of the execution petition with regard to Mark A only, which formed part of decree dated 18.03.1985 and that however, there is no order regarding non- maintainability of execution of decree dated 18.03.1985 with regard to agreement Mark B. Respondent-JD again took the objection before learned executing Court that the second execution application was also not maintainable as this Court has already held that the entire execution was not maintainable and the said order was upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned executing Court accepted the objection filed by respondent-JD and hence, the execution application was ordered to be dismissed as not maintainable. 3 CR No. 4484 of 1994 It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- decree holder that the order earlier passed in earlier execution petition was not regarding the entire decree based on agreements Mark A and Mark B and that the earlier execution was only with regard to agreement Mark A and hence, it is contended that petitioner-decree holder is having right to get decree regarding Mark B executed. The plea has been contested by learned respondent-JD on the ground that earlier execution was regarding the entire decree and order dated 15.04.1991 was also passed by this Court regarding the entire decree. It has also been contended that agreements Mark A and Mark B cannot be separated as on the basis of both Mark A and Mark B a consolidated decree was passed which was challenged by the respondent-JD. A perusal of earlier execution application filed on behalf of petitioner-decree holder shows that the same was filed regarding the entire decree dated 18.03.1985 and the amount was claimed as per the said decree. It has not been mentioned in the said execution petition that the same is being filed regarding execution of part of the decree only. Hence, learned executing Court has rightly observed that when the issue has already been decided upto Hon’ble Apex Court, second execution application with regard to the same issue is not maintainable. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned executing Court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 4 CR No. 4484 of 1994 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) January 14, 2011. JUDGE 'om' NOTE: Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes / No 5