IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.378 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.1.2009. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others ....Petitioners Versus Singh Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the petitioners. RAJESH BINDAL, J. **** The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated December 2, 2008 passed by the learned Executing Court whereby in execution of judgment and decree dated December 10, 2001, the objection filed by the petitioners were dismissed wherein it was sought to be claimed that the respondents had not furnished the details of the amount due to them in terms of the decree. It was noticed by the Court that infact the respondent/decree-holders had furnished the detail of the amount due to them in terms of the decree. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the relief granted to the respondent/decree-holders is not in conformity with the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In fact in CWP No.8573 of 2004, this court had granted similar relief to the other employees and that judgment is subject matter before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Even, Regular Second Appeal filed against the judgment in appeal against the decree being executed is subject matter of second appeal before this Court which is pending. However, he fairly submitted that there is no interim stay granted by this Court in Regular First Appeal filed by the petitioners. C.R. No.378 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Once the judgment and decree of the Court below and is sought to be executed by the respondents/decree-holders, the subject matter of appeal to this Court and no interim stay has been granted, I do not see any reason for implementation of the judgment in the execution proceedings. The details of the amount due to the petitioner/decree-holders have been furnished by them before the Executing Court as is noticed in the impugned order. The representatives of the petitioners stated before Court that the petitioners will comply with the judgment and decree dated December 10, 2001 and for that purpose an adjournment was sought. Once, the petitioners have themselves after finding the details of the amount due had been furnished by the respondent/decree-holders stated before the Court that they will comply with the judgment and decree, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 27.1.2009 JUDGE Reema