IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6416 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.10.2011. Achar Singh ....................Petitioner v. Surjit Singh and others .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.RK Sharma,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Petitioner/JD has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to assail the order dated 24.8.2011 (P5) whereby his objections to the judgement and decree dated 13.1.2006 (P1)have been dismissed. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was functioning as President of the defendant no.3-The Bilaspur Co-operative Labour and Construction Society Ltd. and the payments for the price of the bricks supplied by the plaintiff were to be made to the society and thus could not be recovered from the petitioner/JD. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/JD at length and going through the impugned order and the pleadings, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order(P5) passed by the learned Executing Court. It is apparent that the petitioner Achar Singh was impleaded as defendant no.1 including the Society against whom a decree dated 13.1.2006 (P1) was passed. For ready reference, the operating part of the decree is reproduced below:- “It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost for the recovery of Rs.40,000/- as principal amount. Although the plaintiff is claiming the rate of interest @ 18% p.a., however, the rate of interest is apparently very exorbitant and much higher than the rate of interest which has been granted by the nationalised banks and the other financial undertakings. In order to advance interest of it is ordered that the plaintiff will be entitled to claim interest @ 9% on the principal amount of Rs.40,000/- from 14.9.1995 till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% p.a. on the principal amount from the date of decree till the realization of the same.” Perusal of the decree reveals that there was no exception carved out as to from whom the amount was recoverable. It is further apparent that the petitioner Achar Singh filed an appeal against the decree dated 13.1.2006 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 7.8.2007 (P2). It is further not in dispute that the Regula Second Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by this Court vide judgement dated 3.9.2009 (P3). It is thus evident that the petitioner having failed upto this Court , in my view, the learned Executing Court has rightly dismissed the objections as it is not open for him to re- agitate the issues which have already become final. Dismissed. 19.10.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge