Civil Revision No. 6982 of 2010 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6982 of 2010 Date of decision. 30.09.2011 Chandan Lal and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. By way of this revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 25.09.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon has been questioned. Chandan Lal and others, the petitioners are the decree holders, who are entitled to receive compensation from the respondents under the award dated 06.05.2008. The petitioners filed execution application before learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon wherein the executing court took notice of the statement made on behalf of the judgment debtors that the matter was pending before this court. The request on behalf of the judgment debtors was that the payment may be released against security. In view of the same, the impugned order has been made releasing 50% of the amount against security and remaining 50% without security. This order has been questioned by the decree holders. Civil Revision No. 6982 of 2010 --2-- I have heard Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The appeal preferred by the State against the award dated 6.5.2008 stands dismissed vide decision dated 01.10.2010 where the main judgment is there in RFA No.1824 of 2006. Even otherwise the pendency of the appeal against the award in question should not have been taken as a reason for asking security for release of 1/2 of the amount of the award. There was no stay against releasing the amount in question and consequently learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon was not justified in asking the decree holders to furnish security for release of 50% of the amount. In view of the same, the view taken by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon is incorrect. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed to the decree holders without their furnishing any security. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 30.09.2011 dinesh