CR No.46 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.46 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 08-01-2010 Tej Ram .... Petitioner VERSUS Shri Narayan Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 31.07.2009 passed by the court below, whereby execution application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as satisfied. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the suit filed by him for mandatory injunction directing the respondents/defendants for preparation of bills for the period from October 1998 to October 1999, was decreed. The quantity of work as executed by the petitioner as the sub-conctractor, was specifically mentioned in the suit and so the rates applicable. However, still the learned executing court did not execute the decree strictly in terms thereof. Rather the bills prepared by respondents/defendants have been accepted in satisfaction of the decree, though the same are not in terms of the quantity of work carried out and also not at the applicable rates. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Though the claim in the suit filed by the petitioner was made in detail regarding the quantity of work executed by the petitioner and also the rate at which he was entitled to the payment therefor. However, the only relief granted to the petitioner in judgment of the civil court dated 1.06.2002 was that the bills pertaining to the period from October 1998 to October 1999 as had not been prepared by the respondent/defendants, accordingly, they were directed to prepare the bills regarding the work executed by the petitioner/plaintiff. No other relief was granted. In the light of the findings of the civil court, it cannot be opined that CR No.46 of 2010 (O&M) -2- there was a specific direction given by the court regarding preparation of bills at the rates claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff in his suit or the quantity of work as no evidence was led in the suit to that effect. For the reasons aforesaid and the material on record, I do not find that any error has been committed by the court below in dismissing the execution application as satisfied. Dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 08.01.2010 JUDGE manju