Civil Revision No.5609 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5609 of 2010 Date of Decision:06.09.2010 Municipal Council, Mansa .... petitioner Versus Puneet Bansal & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Rajiv Joshi,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 13.07.2010 passed by Executing Court, whereby a sum of Rs.19 lacs has been attached in the bank account maintained by the petitioner, in the J & K Bank, Mansa, in execution of judgment and decree dated 09.12.2009. It is not in dispute that suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery has been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 09.12.2009 and no stay is operating in favour of the appellants, though the appeal challenging the aforesaid decree is pending before the Lower Appellate Court. Undisputedly, the account of the petitioner was attached by the Executing Court by its previous orders which are not under challenge. On an application filed by the decree holder in execution file No.12 of 2010 to release the decretal amount, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions Civil Revision No.5609 of 2010 2 from the accountant of petitioner(Sh.Amrit Pal),suffered a statement that JD has no objection to keep the attachment of the account of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.19 lacs, intact. On the basis of aforesaid order, the impugned order was passed. The petitioner-Municipal Council has filed the present petition challenging the impugned order, whereby, on the authorization of Amrit Pal-accountant of the petitioner-Municipal Council, its counsel has suffered statement to attach the account for satisfaction of the decree from attached account. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the aforesaid amount could not have been utilized for this purpose and Sh.Amrit Pal-accountant was not competent to instruct the learned counsel for the petitioner to suffer the statement. It is not in dispute that Sh. Amrit Pal-accountant of the petitioner-Municipal Council was deputed to attend the executing court to assist the counsel for the petitioner. In spite of the contention raised before this court that aforesaid Amrit Pal was not authorized to make any statement, nothing has been placed before this court to prove the said assertion. In the absence of any such evidence/document in this regard, it cannot be held that the aforesaid accountant was not authorized to make the statement on behalf of the Municipal Council and therefore nothing can be found illegal in the impugned order. It may be noticed that it is for the Municipal Council to take appropriate action against its officials who have exceeded their jurisdiction or authority. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 06.09.2010 neenu