Civil Revision No.3034 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3034 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 6, 2011 Vijay Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.12025-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3034 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate order for setting aside order dated 29.10.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Fatehabad, (Annexure P1), in Execution No.30, filed on 3.5.2000/7.11.2002 in LAC No.359 of 1997, vide which execution filed by petitioner has been dismissed being fully satisfied. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Fatehabad. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court had directed learned trial Court earlier for deciding the matter afresh in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, 2006(8) SCC 457. It is further contended that thereafter one calculation sheet, Annexure P2 was filed by the State and another calculation sheet, Annexure P3, was filed by the petitioner and, Civil Revision No.3034 of 2011(O&M) -2- however, learned trial Court accepted the calculations filed by the State without discussing as to how the calculations filed by the State is correct and as to how calculations submitted by present petitioner is incorrect. It is further contended that rather the calculations submitted by present petitioner is as per dictum settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh's case (supra). Perusal of the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Fatehabad, shows that the order is not a speaking one on the point. Though it has been mentioned in the order that in calculation sheet submitted by the petitioner he has not adjusted part payment as per mode indicated in Forms D, however, there is no discussion as to how learned Court arrived at the said conclusion. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned Additional District Judge- II, Fatehabad, is directed to decide the matter afresh by passing a speaking order on the point. 6.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge