Civil Revision No. 5378 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5378 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.3.2010 M/s Ganesh Trading Company through its partners .. Petitioners v. Food Corporation of India .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H. S. Dhandi, Advocate for the respondent. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition filed by the judgment-debtors is to the order dated 30.8.2003, passed by the learned Executing Court dismissing the objections filed by them in execution of the ex-parte judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent-Food Corporation of India (for short, `the Corporation’). Briefly, the facts are that the Corporation filed a suit against the petitioners for recovery, which was decreed ex-parte for Rs. 1,78,936.89 with interest and costs on 19.8.1989. As the petitioners failed to appear despite service, they had been proceeded against ex-parte. Neither any application was filed by the petitioners for setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree nor appeal was preferred against the same. The objections were taken in the objection petition that a sum of Rs. 1,11,640.72 due to the petitioners was lying with the Corporation, which it failed to deduct while filing the suit and the said amount deserved to be adjusted out of the decretal amount. The objections having been dismissed, the judgment-debtors are before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in reply to the objections filed by the petitioners, it was admitted by the Corporation that the amount in question was due, however, it was claimed that the same could not be adjusted for the reason that the claim to that effect had become time barred. He submitted that once the decree-holder had admitted certain amount due to the petitioners, the same deserved to be adjusted and the view expressed by the learned Civil Revision No. 5378 of 2003 [2] court below that the claim to that effect, being time barred, could not be raised during the execution proceedings, is erroneous. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the petitioners are playing hide and seek. In fact, in spite of service in the suit filed by the Corporation, the petitioners failed to appear and accordingly were proceeded against ex-parte. After the ex-parte decree was passed, no steps were taken by the petitioners either to get it set aside or challenge the same in appeal. It is only during the execution proceedings that the claim was made for set off of some alleged amount due to the petitioners from the Corporation. Such a claim being time barred was not maintainable and further even in execution, this type of set off was not permissible. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. What the petitioners sought by filing the objections in execution of the judgment and decree passed against them was set off of certain amount, which was allegedly due to them from the Corporation. It is not in dispute that the petitioners failed to appear in the suit filed against them and the judgment and decree was passed ex-parte, which attained finality, as the same was not challenged any further. If certain amount was allegedly due to the petitioners from the Corporation, the right course would have been to claim set off in the suit filed and to prove the same before the court below. The scope of execution does not entitle the judgment-debtors to raise such a plea at that stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners had not cited any judgment in support of the argument raised by him to the effect that the plea regarding set off of a time barred claim can possibly be raised in execution of a decree passed against that person. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 2.3.2010 mk