Civil Revision No. 2661 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2661 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.4.2009 Gurwinder Kaur ..... Petitioner vs State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. G. S. Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. O. P. Dabla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner has approached this court challenging the order dated 22.2.2008 passed by the learned Executing Court whereby the execution application filed by the petitioner was 'consigned sine die'. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was dismissed from service without holding any inquiry by invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial court, however, in appeal her claim was accepted. The order of her termination was set aside and she was directed to be reinstated and granted continuity of service. In execution proceedings on account of non-satisfaction of the decree dated 8.8.2000 passed in her favour, the Executing Court issued warrants of attachment of the judgment-debtor. However, on 22.2.2008, finding that certain documents such as judgments and decrees of the trial court and the lower Appellate Court and other relevant documents being not on record, the court consigned the execution petition sine die giving liberty to the petitioner to file afresh one annexing all the documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as the judgments and decrees of the trial court and the learned Lower Appellate Court are concerned, both were available in the court and the other documents relied upon by her in the form of rules entitling her uniform and house rent can be provided by her in the court on the next date of hearing. Civil Revision No. 2661 of 2008 (2) The submission is that in case the learned court had granted liberty to the petitioner to submit the requisite documents in the court, she would have furnished the same, instead of adjourning the execution petition sine die with the liberty to file afresh execution. Learned State counsel does not have any objection to the revival of the execution petition filed by the petitioner in view of the fair stand of the counsel for the petitioner that he will furnish requisite documents and the rules before the learned Executing court on the next date of hearing. Considering the aforesaid stand of the parties, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the learned Executing court on 22.2.2008 only to the extent whereby the executing proceedings 'consigned sine die' and direct the petitioner to furnish all the requisite documents, as noticed in the order on the next date of hearing. Parties through their counsels are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 30.5.2009 for further proceedings. Petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. 16.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge