IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1522 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 19.03.2009 Vinod Kumar ......Petitioner VERSUS State Bank of India and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Munish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 08.11.2008 and 13.02.2009, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the execution was restored even though the petitioner had not made the payment of costs of Rs.300/- and the receipt shown by the petitioner is in connection with some criminal case and does not relate to the present case. The trial Court in the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2009 while relying upon two judgments United Bank of India versus Naresh Kumar and others AIR 1997 Supreme Court3 and M/s Stangen Pharmaceuticals, Division of Dr.Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Versus Rakesh Gupta 2002 (3) Civil Court Cases 379 (P&H) has held that the order of restoration of execution could not be recalled for want of payment of costs. No grounds to interfere in the impugned order are made out, however, the irregularity could be cured. Dismissed. However, the respondent is directed to make the payment of costs of Rs.300/- to the petitioner on the date fixed before the trial Court. March 19, 2009 (A.N.JINDAL) mamta-II JUDGE