Civil Revision No.8426 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.8426 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 9, 2011 Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and another .....Petitioners v. M/s Bedi Rice Mills and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Ms.Geeta Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.Nos.6543-44-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record certified copies of zimni orders as Annexures P2 and P3. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.8426 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 1.6.2000, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioner-Corporation entered into an agreement dated 15.11.1995 for milling of paddy with the respondents and however, respondents defalcated in supplying milled rice from the paddy supplied by the Corporation. Bank guarantee of `15 lacs given by respondents in favour of petitioners-Corporation was invoked. Respondents filed suit for permanent Civil Revision No.8426 of 2010(O&M) -2- injunction against petitioners-Corporation. Suit filed by respondents- plaintiffs was decreed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed by petitioners- Corporation was also dismissed. Respondents filed execution petition. Petitioners-Corporation filed an application before the Executing Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.5.2007. Against the said order, appeal was filed by petitioners-Corporation. Notice of appeal was given to respondents on the addresses as given in the execution petition. However, the appeal was dismissed by learned appellate Court on the ground that correct addresses of legal heirs of respondent no.4-Surjan Singh have not been supplied. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the respondents are closely related and that legal representatives of respondent no.4 are already represented by counsel before the Executing Court. Hence, it is contended that opportunity be granted to petitioner to get the service effected upon legal representatives of Surjan Singh, i.e., respondent no.4 through their counsel appearing in the execution proceedings on their behalf. In view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned Additional District Judge is directed to give an opportunity to petitioner to get the service effected upon legal representatives of respondent no.4 through their counsel appearing before Executing Court. Disposed of accordingly. 9.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge