Civil Revision No. 7436 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 7436 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 15.12.2009. Sukhwant Singh ....Petitioner Versus Pritam Kaur and others ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J. **** Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 14.11.2009 passed by the learned Court below whereby in an application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 for stay of execution proceedings during the pendency of the application for setting aside of ex-parte judgment and decree passed against him, learned Court below directed for deposit of a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in the Court, as part of the decretal amount. It is a case in which the petitioner was an accused for the murder of son of respondent No.1/plaintiff. The FIR was registered on 3.6.2003. The petitioner was arrested on 2.7.2003 and was convicted for the murder. He was released on bail on 10.2.2009 during the pendency of appeal before this Court. During the period of his custody, a suit was filed for compensation which was decreed on 30.11.2007, after the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte. After the petitioner was released from the jail, an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree was passed which is still under consideration. However, in an application for stay filed therein for stay of execution proceedings in the decree, learned Court below directed for deposit of Rs. 5 lacs in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in the present case could not appear in Court because of his being in custody at the time when the suit was filed and decreed ex-parte. He could not contest the Civil Revision No. 7436 of 2009(O&M) 2 suit. Directions given by the learned Court below in an application for stay of execution proceedings during the pendency of application for setting aside ex- parte decree are quite onerous. The petitioner will not be able to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lacs. He can offer his land as security to satisfy the decree, if any, passed against him ultimately. He further submitted that he can even furnish a bank guarantee as security. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. As far as non appearance of the petitioner in the suit is concerned that issue is under consideration before the Court below in an application filed for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Accordingly, I do not deem it appropriate to opine thereon. As far as the condition put in by learned Court below for stay of execution proceedings is concerned, the same cannot be said to be onerous. It is a case in which the petitioner has been convicted for the murder of the son of respondent/plaintiff. The amount of compensation has been determined at Rs. 9,60,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner, who was in jail when the suit was filed was served in the jail and on certain dates his counsel had appeared in the Court when the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permission to sue as indigent person was being considered. Learned Court below has merely directed the petitioner to deposit about 50% of the decretal amount for disbursement to the respondent/plaintiff which cannot be said to be excessive or unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 15.12.2009 JUDGE Reema