IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1788 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.08.2010 Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, the Mall Patiala and others .... Petitioners Versus Jarnail Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Munish Kapila, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for the respondent ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging order dated 24.1.2009 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Muktsar thereby rejecting the objections filed by the judgment debtor (petitioners herein) in execution for recovery of the money pursuant to the decree. Judgment debtor/department (petitioners herein) raised objections that in the departmental enquiry it has been found that department had suffered losses because of decree holder, hence, amount of Rs. 55,000/- were directed to be recovered from the employee/decree holder, which is liable to be set off/adjusted against the decretal amount. In the opinion of this Court for the alleged recovery against the employee, judgment debtor can not plead set off during the execution. Judgment debtor is at liberty to file suit for recovery of alleged amount. Objection filed by department/judgment debtor are not at all maintainable. Objections as well as present petition C.R. No. 1788 of 2009 2 amounts to abuse of process of law. It seems that after passing of the decree, to deprive the decree holder from payment under the decree, department has come out with the story that due to fault of the employee department has suffered losses, hence, recovery is to be made against the decree holder which is liable to be set off/adjusted against the decretal amount. Story set up by the department is highly improbable. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed with subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- (ALOK SINGH) 20.08.2010 JUDGE reena