IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7920 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: August 23, 2011. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Yadwinder Singh. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 07.10.2010, Annexure P4 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Malerkotla vide which application of the petitioner-decree holder for restoration of Execution Petition, was dismissed. CR No.7920 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned executing Court. Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, petitioner-decree holder had filed execution petition No.11 of 1999 for execution of the arbitral award dated 12.08.1998. Property belonging to respondent-JD was also attached in the said execution petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear on 06.03.2010 and hence, execution petition was dismissed in default and the attached property was also ordered to be released from attachment. Application under Order 9 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of said execution petition was moved on 23.03.2010 i.e. within the period of limitation by taking the plea that counsel could not appear as he was busy in some other court and however, the said application was also dismissed merely on the ground that plaintiff has not disclosed the particulars of the case in which counsel was busy in the other court. This court while issuing notice of motion on 06.12.2010 has already directed that property already attached shall not be released from attachment. Hence, in view of these facts, illegality and material irregularity has been committed by learned executing Court in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-decree holder under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of execution petition. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. 2 CR No.7920 of 2010 Learned executing Court is directed to restore the execution petition filed by petitioner-decree holder at its original number and decide the same as per law. However, petitioner is burdened with cost of `5,000/- which shall be a condition precedent. Both the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before learned executing Court on 19.09.2011. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) August 23, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3