C. R. No. 2020 OF 2007. Present : Mr.S.C.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Peeyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G Punjab for the respondents. ******* Prayer in this revision petition is for setting aside the order, dated 7.3.2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar, dismissing the execution petition, filed by the petitioner. The dispute, in brief, is whether, while complying with the judgment and decree, dated 3.12.2001, the respondent-State of Punjab could withhold an amount of Rs.30,208/- from the petitioner's gratuity. The executing Court, while dismissing the execution petition, held that the aforementioned amount was due from the petitioner pursuant to an order, passed on an inquiry conducted by the State of Punjab. The State was, therefore, justified in refusing to release the said amount. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. A perusal of paragraph 8 of the judgment, under execution, dated 3.12.2001, reveals that the prayer to withhold payment of Rs.30,208/- to the petitioner, was raised and negatived by the trial Court. It was specifically held that this amount could not be recovered from the petitioner's gratuity and the State was at liberty to recover it by filing a suit for recovery. Paragraph 8 of the judgment, under execution, reads as follows :- “8. Coming to the second aspect, as to if the pensionary benefits can be stopped in view of the enquiry being pending against the erring official, it is set notion of law C.R.No.2020 of 2007 : 2 : that if any amount is found to be recoverable from the retiree, the department has the remedy to recover the same by filing suit for recovery. Purpose of releasing the gratuity is not enable the retiree to settle in life after his retirement and if this amount of gratuity which he has earned himself is not released to the retiree, he would not be in a position to settle himself in the life.” The executing Court failed to consider the above finding recorded against the State, in paragraph 8 of the judgment, under execution, reproduced herein above and proceeded to wrongly accept the respondents' contention that they were entitled to withhold Rs.30,208/-. The executing Court travelled beyond the judgment and decree, under execution, and, therefore, erred in the discharge of its jurisdiction. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, the order, dated 7.3.2007 is set aside and the execution petition is restored to its original number and stage. The executing Court, namely, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar is directed to decide the execution petition afresh, in accordance with law, within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) January 10, 2008. JUDGE `kk'