Civil Revision No. 965 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.965 of 2010 Date of decision : 17.3.2010 The Faridkot Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Faridkot ....Petitioner Versus Major Singh and others ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Vishal Dharmani , Advocate for Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Brar, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The learned Executing Court granted following order which is under challenge before this Court:- “In view of above statement of Ld. counsel for the DH, present execution application is dismissed as withdrawn being partly satisfied. However, the proceedings shall remain intact and DH would be at liberty to file fresh execution application within time. File be consigned.” The grievance of the petitioner/judgment debtor is that there was no justification for the learned Executing Court to dismiss the execution application as partly satisfied and to simultaneously direct that the proceedings “shall remain intact” inspite thereof. A similar controversy came up before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 5539 of 2009 (The Faridkot Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Mukhtiar Singh and another) decided on 30.11.2009 Civil Revision No. 965 of 2010 -2- the order was invalidated. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is not in a position to argue in favour of upholding of the impugned order. A Court is mandated by law to execute a decision in toto. The execution of a decree ought not to be left in limbo except when a Decree Holder himself opts to stay content with part-satisfaction thereof or if there are circumstances, noted in the order itself, impeding the total satisfaction of a decree. If, however, a Court opts (for whatever reasons) to dispose of an execution partly satisfied, it cannot order that the (attachment) proceedings shall stay intact. The adoption of that course of action is foreign to the system of dispensation of justice. The impugned order brings to the fore the fact that the Trial Court opted to grant the impugned order inspite of the fact that a similar order had earlier been set aside by ( a Coordinate Bench)of this Court. This is not the solitary instance of the indicated category which has come to the notice of this Court. Elsewhere, Courts have been directing disbursement of compensation (in land acquisition cases) subject to onerous riders inspite of noticing in the order itself that the matter had been adjudicated upon upto this Court. The Court, in that case, felt that the affected party might like to endeavour an SLP. Those orders came to be set aside by various Coordinate Benches. The practice of granting those orders continues inspite of the invalidation by this Court. This Court would like to reiterate that the view obtained by this Court mandates compulsive compliance and the grant of any order in contradiction thereof amounts to indiscipline inherent in the hierarchal scheme of things governing our vibrant judicial system. This Court would like to believe that the prevalent practice stems for want of information about the view of this Court. Civil Revision No. 965 of 2010 -3- A copy of this order shall be circulated forthwith to all the judicial Courts within the jurisdictional ambit of this Court. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order insofar as it relates to the retention of the proceedings intact shall stand invalidated. March 17, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE