IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.M.No.1884-CII of 2009 and C.R.No.12 of 2009 Date of order : 23.1.2009 State of Punjab and others ......Petitioner(s) Versus C.L. Goyal ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Palminder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH,J(ORAL) C.M.No.1884-CII of 2009 Application is allowed. Affidavit of petitioners No.1 to 3 is taken on record. C.R.No.12 of 2009 This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-State of Punjab/judgment debtors under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 4.9.2008 (Annexure P.7) passed by Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Patiala whereby the learned Executing Court has attached an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- in the salary Head Account No.2040 Taxes on Sale and Trade etc of Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, Patiala and Salary Sub Head 001- Direction and administration of the office of Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, Patiala as the judgment-debtors had not shown their willingness to make the payment to the Decree Holder in any manner. The facts, which emerge from the pleadings, are that a suit was filed by the respondent C.L. Goyal-plaintiff for declaration to the effect that C.R.No.12 of 2009 #2# the action of the defendants by not paying compound interest on the delayed payments of pensionary benefits and amount of leave encashment is illegal and for grant of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay the amount. Admittedly, the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was decreed on 30.11.2005. In the execution proceedings filed by the respondent-plaintiff, as per his calculation, claiming a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- vis-a-vis the claim of the petitioners-State were decided by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 23.4.2007 (Annexure P.5). Thus, the objections filed by the State qua the calculations were rejected. It is admitted that the petitioners-State filed a revision petition bearing C.R.No.3474 of 2007 challenging order dated 23.4.2007 whereby their objection petition was dismissed and this Court vide order dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure P.6) disposed of the matter by observing as under: “In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners will be at liberty to seek appropriate relief available to them in accordance with law, before the learned First Appellate Court. At the same time, the petitioners are also allowed to take the plea taken in this petition, before the First Appellate Court.” Learned counsel for the petitioners-State states that after passing of order dated 15.11.2007 regarding the calculation, the objections were taken up before the learned Appellate Court, however, the same have been dismissed along with the appeal vide order dated 20.10.2008. Learned counsel further states that the Department is in process of filing a regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court. In view of the afore-stated position existing now and the fact that in the impugned order, the learned Executing Court has given the C.R.No.12 of 2009 #3# petitioners-judgment debtors an option to either deposit the said amount or furnish equivalent security, learned counsel for the petitioners-State does not press this petition. Dismissed as not pressed. January 23, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE