C. R. No. 7222 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 7222 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 26, 2010 Harbhajan Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Jasbir Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Atul Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Decree holder has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the Executing Court i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib to decide expeditiously the execution petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents. Respondents – judgment-debtors no.1 and 2 had filed objections on 09.02.2008 in the execution petition. The petitioner – decree- holder filed reply on 22.04.2008 to the said objections and thereafter, C. R. No. 7222 of 2009 2 Executing Court granted many adjournments for hearing on the objections and even partly heard arguments on the objections on some dates of hearing, but the objections were not disposed of till 16.03.2010, when this Court ordered issuance of notice of motion for 09.04.2010 and also called for comments of the Presiding Officer of the Executing Court. Accordingly, comments of the Presiding Officer of the Executing Court were received. This Court, vide order dated 09.04.2010, observed that the Executing Court had unnecessarily delayed the disposal of the objections and accordingly, learned Presiding Officer of the Executing Court was directed to be careful in future. The case was adjourned to 21.05.2010 for service of notice of respondents no.1 and 2. Executing Court was also directed to expedite the proceedings. On 21.05.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that objections preferred by respondents no.1 and 2 had still not been decided by the Executing Court. This was found to be highly offensive in view of orders dated 16.03.2010 and 09.04.2010 noticed herein above. Accordingly, explanation of the Presiding Officer of the Executing Court was called for today. The learned Presiding Officer has stated in the explanation that objections filed by respondents no.1 and 2 had been decided on 07.05.2010. Copy of the said order dated 07.05.2010 has also been annexed. It is thus apparent that on 21.05.2010, counsel for the petitioner made a false statement that objections of respondents no.1 and 2 had not been decided by the Executing Court, although the said objections C. R. No. 7222 of 2009 3 had already been dismissed on 07.05.2010. The aforesaid false statement made by counsel for the petitioner on 21.05.2010 prompted this Court to seek explanation from the Executing Court, thereby putting the Officer to unnecessary strain and stress and also wastage of time in sending explanation. The behaviour of the petitioner has to be condemned strictly and he has to be subjected to exemplary cost for making a false statement against the Presiding Officer of the Executing Court to induce this Court to seek explanation of the Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner is subjected to Rs.10,000/- as cost to be deposited with the Registry of this Court. Counsel for the petitioner states that the instant revision petition has been rendered infructuous because the execution petition has since been disposed of. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, if the petitioner does not deposit the cost amount within one month from today, the case shall be listed for this purpose. July 26, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE