Civil Revision No.5317 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No.5317 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.7.2010 Dr. Balwanti Devi …Petitioner Versus M/s Jagan Lee Tek Lamps Limited …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Lathwa, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner Dr. Balwanti Devi has assailed order dated 9.3.2009 (Annexure P9), passed by the Executing Court, whereby the compensation and damages, as claimed by the petitioner, were denied on the ground that the same were not specified in the judgment and decree. The following observations of the Executing Court are required to be reproduced below:- “...Thus, when the decree which was granted to counter claimant does not specify that any relief regarding the compensation or damages was being granted, the said relief shall be deemed to have been refused by the Court granting the decree. Civil Revision No.5317 of 2009 2 Hence, the application moved by the present applicant/DH for grant of damages is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance”. The above said finding of the Executing Court is assailed in the present revision petition. To appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be necessary to notice brief facts of the case. Respondent M/s Jagan Lee Tek Lamps Limited preferred a suit for permanent injunction. In the suit, a counter claim was filed by the petitioner. An application was also filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction. The trial Court, vide order dated 13.10.1997 (Annexure P3) considering the counter claim, noticed the contention of the petitioner/defendant that the plaintiff/respondent had encroached upon his land and he has no legal right to claim injunction. The Court while deciding the application directed the plaintiff/respondent to furnish a bond of Rs.50,000/- so that the petitioner/defendant could be adequately compensated for the loss ensued due to order of injunction granted in its favour. The relevant portion of order (Annexure P3) reads as under:- “...The plaintiff, in view of Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke Case (Supra) is also directed to file a bond of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of this Court that in the event of his failing in the suit to obtain relief asked for in the plaint, he would adequately Civil Revision No.5317 of 2009 3 compensate the defendant for loss ensued due to the order of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff as this Court can award damages arising due to obtaining ad interim injunction in the event of failing of the suit. It be filed within seven days, failing which the application stand dismissed”. The suit proceeded and the parties led their evidence. Finally the suit was dismissed and counter-claim of the petitioner/defendant was decreed. The trial Court, in its judgment dated 14.6.2005 (Annexure P6), while determining the relief, held as under:- “...17. As a sequel to my findings on the abovesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff fails and same is hereby dismissed with costs, however, the counter claim of the counter-claimants/defendants is decreed with costs. Resultantly, a decree of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to remove his encroachment on the land of the defendant to the extent of 0-7 marlas as per demarcation report dated 15.11.2003 as shown in site plan by letters ABCD attached with the said repot by demolishing the wall and to handover the possession of land 0-7 Marlas within three months from today, is hereby passed. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly and file be consigned to record room, after due compliance”. Civil Revision No.5317 of 2009 4 It will be pertinent to reproduce below the relevant portion of the decree drawn by the trial Court:- “...It is ordered that suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. However, the counter claim of the counter claimants/defendants is decreed with costs. Resultantly a decree of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to remove his encroachment on the land of the defendant to the extent of 0-7 Marlas as per demarcation report dated 15.1.2003 as shown in site plan marked by letters ABCD attached with the said report by demolishing the wall and to hand over the possession of land of 0-7 Marlas within three months from today is hereby passed”. Grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the interim order dated 13.10.1997 (Annexure P3), the Executing Court should have calculated the damages and compensation which was due to her. It is not in dispute that judgment and decree dated 14.6.2005 (Annexure P6) has attained finality. In the judgment and decree, damages and compensation have not been assessed. Even it has not been mentioned that the petitioner/defendant would be entitled to encashment of the bond. Therefore, the Executing Court has rightly held that it could not go beyond the decree and could not grant the relief as sought by the petitioner/defendant. The petitioner is having an alternative remedy. Hence, no fault can be found with the well reasoned impugned order, passed by the Executing Court and thus, the present revision Civil Revision No.5317 of 2009 5 petition is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 21, 2010 “DK”