IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.R.No.552 of 2009 (O&M) Date of order : 31.1.2009 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd ......Petitioner(s) Versus M/s Prem Kumar Aggarwal and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. D.C. Mittal, Advocate for Mr. Harish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(ORAL) Facts giving rise to the revision petition, filed by the petitioner- Insurance Company under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are that on January 1984, it was a tenant under the respondents-plaintiffs in a portion of Sukhdial Building, G.T Road, Batala on the first floor comprising of six rooms at the monthly rent of Rs.1800/-. On the proceedings initiated by the respondents for their eviction, an ejectment order was passed against the petitioner-Insurance Company on 1.4.1999 by the learned Rent Controller and an appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed on 7.11.2002. In the said proceedings, the petitioner-Insurance Company had taken up a plea that they had vacated the premises on 1.7.1993. It appears that their version was not believed and there was no finding recorded on that aspect in their favour. Subsequently, respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit No.946 of 2002 on 24.12.2002 for recovery of Rs.76,800/- as arrears of rent with interest. Notice of the suit was given to the petitioner-defendants. They filed their written statement and took up the stand that since they had vacated the premises on 1.7.1993, the suit had C.R.No.552 of 2009 (O&M) #2# become infructuous. It was admitted that the arrears of rent was only due from May 1993 to June 1993 and they were willing to pay the rent. On the basis of the pleadings, issue No.1 was framed as to “whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.76,800/- from the defendant along with interest at the rate of Rs.12% p.a?OPP”. On this issue, the finding was recorded by the learned Court that the defendants had not proved on record that the possession was ever delivered to the plaintiffs on 1.7.1993 and accordingly, it was decided against the petitioner-Insurance Company and in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs. Learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Batala decreed the suit of the plaintiffs on 26.3.2004. Thereafter, respondents- plaintiffs filed execution proceedings, wherein objections were filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company. The learned Executing Court vide its order dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P.5) dismissed the objections of the judgment- debtor/Insurance Company and ordered the issuance of warrant of attachment of their property for 12.2.2009. Hence, the present revision petition. It is the case of the petitioner-Insurance Company that they had filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.3.2004 passed by the learned trial Court, which is still pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company has contended that the learned Executing Court has not taken into account the provisions of Order 41 Rule 6 CPC, which provides that where an appeal is pending, a decree should be executed subject to furnishing of security by the decree-holder and where sale of immovable property in execution of a decree has been ordered and an appeal is pending, sale should be stayed subject to furnishing of adequate security on such terms as the Court may C.R.No.552 of 2009 (O&M) #3# deems fit, until the appeal is disposed of. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. From the facts of the present case, it is not disputed that till today, the delay in filing the appeal by the Insurance Company has not been condoned and it cannot be disputed that no appeal can be entertained till the delay in filing the same is condoned. Therefore, petitioner cannot place any reliance on the provisions of Order 41 Rule 6 CPC because as on today, no appeal filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company is pending. In any case, the suit for recovery of arrears of rent had been decreed in 2004. The amount involved is Rs.76800/- and in the absence of any pending appeal, the Court has exercised its discretion in rejecting the objections filed by the Judgment Debtor. No perversity or illegality can be attributed in the passing of the impugned order. I find no ground to interfere. Dismissed in limine. January 31, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE