Civil Revision No. 6549 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6549 of 2009 Date of decision 29.1.2010. State of Punjab and another ...... Petitioners. versus Constable Dalip Singh ...... Respondents. Present : Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the petitioners. Mr.R.S.Athwal, Advocate for the respondent. K.C.PURI. J. This is revision petition preferred by State of Punjab and Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar against the order dated 16.4.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Amritsar vide which the application under Order 21 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( in short – CPC) filed by the State was dismissed. Dalip Singh ex-constable No.848 was dismissed from service vide order dated 19.7.1985. The decree-holder challenged the said order and after adjudication suit of Dalip Singh was decreed on 11.8.1999. The Civil Revision No. 6549 of 2009 2 judgment debtor/objector preferred appeal and that appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24.3.2003 passed by Shri G.S.Saran, learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar. However, opportunity was granted to the appellant to hold fresh inquiry against the plaintiff after service of proper notice as per Rules. However, no such inquiry has been conducted till today nor any punishment has been awarded to the decree- holder. The judgment dated 11.8.1999 attained finality. Since the order of dismissal of the plaintiff stands set aside, therefore, the decree-holder filed an application, claiming the consequential relief. The judgment-debtors filed objections on the ground that decree-holder is not entitled to consequential relief. However, that objection was dismissed by Shri S.M.Garg, vide order dated 9.12.2006. The judgment debtors have again preferred similar objections with the prayer that since consequential relief has not been allowed to the decree-holder and as such the executing Court cannot grant such relief to the decree-holder. However, the trial Court after going through the previous order dismissed the objections. Feeling dis-satisfied with the above said order of dismissal of objections, the present revision petition has been filed. Shri S.M.Garg, relying upon authority reported Radha Ram vs. Municipal Committee, Barnala (P & H with Full Bench) 1983 PLR page 21 dismissed the objection with the following observations :- “DH was terminated vide order dated 19.7.85 and he filed a suit for declaration, which was decreed by the lower court and the appeal of the J.D was also dismissed and the order of the dismissal was set aside. Now the DH has superannuated and Civil Revision No. 6549 of 2009 3 the Jds have treated the period of absence as leave of the kind due but in view of the authority cited by the counsel for the DH (Supra) after setting aside the order of dismissal, the DH would be deemed to be in continuous service and he is entitled to all the emoluments flowing from the setting aside of the dismissal order and while passing the judgment by the lower court, no liberty was granted to the JD to treat the period of absence as leave of the kind due or no liberty was granted to the JD to pass any order, in this regard. So, the DH is entitled to all the consequential benefits arising out of his re- instatement from the date of dismissal i.e. 19.7.85. So, the application of the JD is hereby dismissed.” The present petition is only the repetition of the earlier objection petition dismissed by the Court. The question arises whether the judgment debtor can file same objections again and again. The answer to that question is in negative. Once the objections have been dismissed, the remedy before the State was to challenge the order dated 9.12.2006 passed by Shri S.M.Garg and the second objection petition on similar grounds cannot be maintained. Counsel for the respondents has also placed on file photocopy of order dated 25.11.2006 in which similar objections raised by the State in case of Constable Surinder Pal Singh were dismissed relying upon authority Radha's case (supra). The State of Punjab challenged the said order in Civil Revision Petition No.2441 of 2008 but that petition was dismissed by this Court on 28.4.2008 being time barred. Civil Revision No. 6549 of 2009 4 Otherwise on merit also, once decree has been passed, so, in view of the Full Bench authority, the decree-holder/employee is entitled to consequential relief. The State was given opportunity to hold fresh inquiry after giving notice to the DH but even after his retirement, no such inquiry has been conducted. Consequently, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE January 29 , 2010 sv