Civil Revision No. 816 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 816 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.07.2009. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kaithal and others ....Petitioners Versus Surju ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CMs No. 10764-65-CII of 2009 The applicants have moved this application to place on record the documents Annexure P-6 to P-11, on the ground that this Court vide order dated 17.3.2009 had directed the applicants to place these documents on record. The application is accompanied by another application for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P-6 to P-11. Order dated 17.3.2009 passed by this Court reads as under: - “On request of counsel for the petitioners, adjourned to 17.4.2009.” The reading of the order would show, that the application is totally mis-conceived, as no such direction, as pleaded, was given by this Court. Otherwise also, the application under Section 151 of the Code Civil Revision No. 816 of 2009 (O&M) -2- of Civil Procedure, to place on record documents to challenge the order, passed by the trial Court, is not competent. The applications are accordingly dismissed. CR No. 816 of 2009 The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 7.4.2008, attached as Annexure P-5. By way of impugned order, the applications moved by the decree-holder stand allowed. The respondent-decree-holder moved two applications, one for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioners, and another to challenge the price demanded by the petitioners herein, for the plot allotted. The respondent-decree-holder had filed a suit No. 221 of 2000 for directing the defendant/petitioners for allotting one kanal plot, as per HUDA policy of 1992 for allotment of plots to the oustees. The suit was decreed on 10.12.2004, it was directed, that the petitioners herein should consider the case of the decree-holder for allotment of plot of 500 square yard under the oustees quota, within six months from the date of passing of the decree. In the decree, it was specifically mentioned, that the allotment was to be made as per the policy dated 18.3.1992. The judgment-debtors i.e. petitioners failed to obey the direction in letter and spirit. It was the case of the decree-holder, that the lapse was intentional and mala fide. The applications were opposed by the petitioners herein, by Civil Revision No. 816 of 2009 (O&M) -3- taking preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the applications, on the plea that the decree stood complied with, as the request of the decree-holder for allotment of plot was rejected. It was also the case set up, that the request of the decree -holder was considered on 8.6.2005 i.e. within six months, by placing the matter before the Oustees Claim Committee, and mini draw was conducted for allotment on 29.11.2005. In pursuance to the mini draw, respondent-decree-holder was allotted plot No. 944, Sector 19-II, HUDA, Kaithal, and in pursuance thereto the decree-holder deposited a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- (Rupees one lac eleven thousand only) under protest on 12.4.2006. The amount was considered to be inadequate, as it did not represent 10% of the price demanded for allotment i.e. the price payable for the plot of 500 square yard on the date of allotment. The learned Executing Court accepted the plea and found that the decree was not executed in letter and spirit, as offer was not made strictly in terms of the decree passed. It was specifically mentioned, in the decree, that the allotment was to be made as per the policy in existence in the year 1992. The learned Executing Court found, that the judgment of this Court in the case of Jit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2002(3) PLR 115 was fully applicable to the facts of the case. The learned Executing Court granted one month's time more, to the petitioners to execute the decree in letter and spirit. The Court, however, kept the option of initiating the contempt proceedings open. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the impugned order, primarily on the ground, that as per the policy and advertisement issued in 1992, the respondent failed to deposit 10% of Civil Revision No. 816 of 2009 (O&M) -4- the price and he was, therefore, not entitled to allotment of plot. This plea is totally mis-conceived. The petitioners were bound to execute the decree, which was passed on 10.12.2004. There was hardly any occasion for the decree-holder to have deposited 10% of the amount in the year 1992. The plea further deserves to be rejected, as in pursuance to the decree, the Oustees Committee found the decree-holder to be entitled to allotment of plot, and in fact, the plot was allotted to him. The dispute, therefore, was only with regard to price. The learned Executing Court was right in holding, that the price payable was to be as per 1992 policy. The learned Executing Court in view of the advertisement issued in pursuance to the 1992 policy, was right in holding that the plot was to be allotted on advertised price and not at the price demanded by the petitioners, i.e. current price of the plot. However, keeping in view the fact that the period allowed by the learned Executing Court for implementation of the decree has expired, the petitioners are given another one month's time from receipt of copy of this judgment, to comply with the order. Except for extension of time, I find no merit in this revision, which is ordered to dismissed, in limine. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 28, 2009 R.S.