Civil Rev. 2522 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. 2522 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.8.2009 M/S Bhushan Ting Box Industries and another Petitioner vs Central Bank of India and another Respondent Present Mr. CB Goel, Advocate Ms.Jyoti Chaudhary, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioners are judgment debtors as the suit of decree holder- respondent bank for recovery stands decreed. Vide impugned order dated 11.1.2008 an application filed by the petitioners- judgment debtors for a direction to the bank to hand over the pledged /hypothecated goods to them or to adjust its amount against the decretal amount stands dismissed. The petitioners claim that in the year 1986 the respondent bank had filed a suit for injunction for restraining the present petitioners from interfering in the possession, custody, rights and interest over the hypothecated goods. An Advocate was appointed as a Local Commissioner to prepare the inventory, which was submitted in the court on 10.7.1982 indicating that the hypothecated goods were in possession of the respondent bank. The petitioners seek to put forth a set off to the extent of the present market value of the above said goods. The executing Court has dismissed the said application rightly observing that the set off of the above mentioned goods is not permissible in execution proceedings. The executing court also observed that the judgment debtors in their own Civil Rev. 2522 of 2008 2 admission have disputed the hypothecation of the said goods with the decree holder bank in paragraph 2 of the application. I have considered all the pleas taken up by the judgment debtor- petitioners. It is indirectly a step to claim the value of certain goods, which were allegedly in possession of the bank in the year 1982. The claim, if any, appears to be barred by time as a period of 27 years till date has elapsed. No ground for interference is made out. The revision petition against the order for requesting a direction to the Bank to hand the goods or adjust the amount is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to take an independent remedy qua the said goods, if permissible under law. The counsel for the petitioners has raised another argument that a sum of Rs.10.75 lacs and another of sum of Rs.55,688/- in total has been paid by the petitioners/ judgment debtors to satisfy the decree in favour of the respondent- decree holder bank . He has submitted that the other immovable property of the petitioners has been sold to recover the decretal amount and at present nothing is due to be paid. The said point regarding decree having been satisfied, irrespective of the adjustment of the price of the alleged hypothecated goods will be determined by the executing court. It is made clear that in case the petitioners are able to satisfy the court that the entire decretal amount has been paid and the decree stands satisfied, the execution application will be closed. August 19 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE