Civil Revision No. 3360 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3360 of 2011 Date of Decision: 20.5.2011 *** Kheta Ram & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Haryana State & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The land of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Hukam Chand was acquired. After litigation, the compensation in respect of acquired land was increased by this Court. In 1996 Hukam Chand filed the execution petition claiming arrears. During pendency of the same, payment was made. Since there was dispute with regard to calculations, he was asked to furnish the calculation sheet. However, on 6.9.2003 the said execution was dismissed for non prosecution. In the year 2009 the present petitioners filed an application for restoration of the execution petition on the ground that Hukam Chand died in the year 2002 and they were not aware of the execution proceedings. The learned Court below by dint of impugned order dated 7.2.2011 dismissed their application. Hence, this revision petition. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various zimni orders passed in the execution petition showing that since 1996 the execution petition was pursued on behalf of the decree holder and it is only on 6.9.2003 when none had appeared on behalf of the decree holder the same was dismissed. The execution petition was filed claiming arrears of compensation. Some amount was paid to the decree holder and there was still dispute with regard to the remainder and interest thereupon. It is also evident that Hukam Chand died on 16.8.2002 i.e. prior to the date when execution petition was dismissed. The petitioners have specifically taken the Civil Revision No. 3360 of 2011 2 stand in their application that they were not aware of the execution proceedings. There is no gain in saying that the petitioners, who have to get monetary benefits from the respondent, would not derive any benefit by lingering on the matter or by non-pursuing the case in time. The Court below vide impugned order observed that the petitioners can file separate petition subject to the law of limitation, but ignored the fact that multiplicity of litigation has to be avoided and in the event of restoration of the petition, the question of award of interest on the amount, if any found due towards the respondent, can be restricted. That apart, it should be the endeavour of the Courts to decide the lis between the parties on merits and not on the basis of technicalities. All these facts have not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. In this view of the matter, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below for passing orders afresh on the application of the petitioner, after hearing both the parties, on merits but without being influenced from any observations made hereinabove. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 20, 2011 Jiten