Civil Revision No.4161 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-7.7.2010 M/s Garg Rice Trading Co. and another ...Petitioners Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.R.N.Singal, Advocate for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, are that in the year 1994-95, the respondent-Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as “PUNSUP”) had given the paddy for milling to M/s Garg Rice Trading Company (hereinafter to be referred as “the petitioner firm”), but it failed to deliver the resultant price to the department. In the wake of reference between the parties, an award was passed in favour of PUNSUP. Since the petitioner firm did not make payment of awarded amount of more than Rs.6 lacs emanating from the award, so, the respondent-PUNSUP filed the execution petition, which is still pending. 2. As the two cheques in the sum of Rs.78891/- issued by the petitioner firm as part payment of the indicated amount, were dis-honoured, therefore, the PUNSUP has filed a complaint against it, invoking the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “the Act”) and Section 420 IPC. Subsequently, since the petitioner-firm made the actual payment of the amount of subject matter of the cheques, so, the matter was compromised and the criminal complaint was dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Instead of paying the remaining balance awarded amount, the petitioner-firm moved an application (Annexure P5) for dismissing the execution Civil Revision No.4161 of 2010 2 petition on account of dismissal of criminal complaint under section 138 of the Act. 4. The PUNSUP contested the said application, filed the reply and explained that the indicated execution petition pertained to the amount of more than Rs.6 lacs and the payment of only Rs.78891/-, (subject matter of the dis- honoured cheques), is no ground to dismiss the execution petition to recover the entire balance amount. 5. The executing Court dismissed the application (Annexure P5) of the petitioner-firm, vide impugned order dated 13.10.2009 (Annexure P1). 6. The petitioner-firm did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and filed the present revision petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, there is no merit in this revision petition. 8. The only contention of the learned counsel that since the petitioner- firm has already paid the amount, subject matter of dis-honoured cheques and criminal complaint against it under sections 138 of the Act and 420 IPC stands withdrawn, so, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed, is not only devoid of merit, but misplaced as well. 9. As is evident from the record, the PUNSUP has filed the execution petition to recover the total awarded amount, which comes to more than Rs.6 lacs. The mere fact that the petitioner-firm has only paid the amount of Rs.78891/-, which was subject matter of the criminal complaint, is no ground to dismiss the execution petition to recover the entire balance awarded amount. It has been acknowledged by the executing court in the impugned order that the amount of Rs.78891/- has already been adjusted by the decree-holder towards part payment of the awarded amount. Therefore, to my mind, the execution petition, for the recovery of balance awarded amount from the petitioner-firm, is very much Civil Revision No.4161 of 2010 3 maintainable and the executing Court has rightly dismissed its application. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the executing Court has rightly dismissed the application (Annexure P5) of the petitioner-firm, vide impugned order (Annexure P1) and no interference is warranted in it, in this respect, while exercising the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 7.7.2010 Judge AS