Civil Revision No. 7613 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7613 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.01.2010 Indraj and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Narender Sura, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, Addl. A.G., Haryana. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 7613 of 2009 titled Indraj and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, Civil Revision No. 7615 of 2009 titled Om Parkash and another Vs. The State of Haryana and others, Civil Revision No.7617 of 2009 titled Indraj Vs. State of Haryana and others, Civil Revision No. 7621 of 2009 titled Bir Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, Civil Revision No. 7796 of 2009 titled Parkash and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, Civil Revision No. 7797 of 2009 titled Parkash and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, Civil Revision No.7798 of 2009 titled Ram Kanwar and another Vs. The State of Haryana and others, Civil Revision No.7799 of 2009 titled Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, Civil Revision No.7800 of 2009 titled Amar Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, Civil Revision No. 7465 of 2009 titled Jagmal Civil Revision No. 7613 of 2009 (O&M) -2- and another Vs. The State of Haryana and others, Civil Revision No.292 of 2010 titled Ram Kishan and another Vs. The State of Haryana and others, Civil Revision No. 294 of 2010 titled Gabdu and others Vs. The State of Haryana and others, Civil Revision No.365 of 2010 titled Jagdish Chander Vs. State of Haryana and others, Civil Revision No. 366 of 2010 titled Amar Nath Vs. The State of Haryana and others, Civil Revision No.367 of 2010 titled Devinder and another Vs. State of Haryana and another and Civil Revision No. 368 of 2010 titled Jagdish Chander Vs. The State of Haryana and others, as common questions of law and facts are involved. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 7613 of 2009. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 18.2.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, in an execution application, moved by the petitioners for recovery of awarded amount. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, reads as under: - “Report of Ahlmad perused. Payment has been deposited. Form is already on the file. RD number not received. JD, has stated that matter is pending before Hon'ble High Court and payment may kindly be given on security. Heard, 50% payment be given to the decree holders on security and remaining 50% be given without security, against proper receipt and identification. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.” Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that the order is Civil Revision No. 7613 of 2009 (O&M) -3- without jurisdiction in as much, no stay is granted by this Court in the Regular First Appeal filed by the State, against the award, which is being executed. The learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, does not controvert the fact, that no stay is granted by this Court in the appeal filed against the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge. In absence of any stay by the higher Court, the learned Executing Court is bound to execute the decree. Once the payment stands deposited by the judgment-debtor, the learned Executing Court is bound to release, it to the decree-holder, as the money deposited with the Court, in fact, is that of the decree-holder and the learned Executing Court has no jurisdiction to withhold any amount deposited in the Court, in absence of an order by the appellate Court, or for disposal of objections, if any, filed against the decree, which may be under consideration of learned Executing Court. These revision petitions are allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Executing Court is directed to release the payment deposited to the decree-holder forthwith. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 29, 2010 R.S.