Civil Revision No. 912 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 912 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.07.2009 Karam Singh ....Petitioner Versus Davinder Kumar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 4320-CII of 2009 Allowed. Petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-6. CR No. 912 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.8.2008 (Annexure P-7), vide which the application for issuance of DRO for Rs.12.80 lac to the applicant-petitioner, has been ordered to be dismissed. The order reads as under: - Civil Revision No. 912 of 2009 (O&M) -2- “This order of mine will dispose of an application for issuance of DRO for Rs.12,80,000/- lying the Civil Nazir, Kapurthala and it is to bring to the kind notice of this Court that order dated 12.4.2008, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sangrur is attached with the application, which has not been taken note of and has been inadvertently, missed the sight of the Court, which is already on the file and lastly it is prayed that DRO be issued in favour of the applicant. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri GS Sidhu Advocate, and have also gone through the order dated 12.4.2008, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sangrur, vide which it is ordered that a letter of request be sent to this Court for sending the above-said amount to the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sangrur so that further disbursed to the decree holder as per compromise effected between the parties on 26.9.2007. Keeping in view that vide order dated 30.1.2008 passed by my learned Predecessor, similar application has already been dismissed and vide order dated 1.8.2008, passed by this Court, another application was dismissed on the same ground that previous application was dismissed on the ground that this Court is not competent to execute the decree in terms of order dated 30.1.2008 and order dated 1.8.2008. As such, present application has no force and the same is dismissed being without merit as no letter of request was received from the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sangrur and no direction can be given by this Court to the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sangrur. Papers be cosigned to the Judicial Record Room.” Learned counsel for the petitioner contended, that petitioner's Civil Revision No. 912 of 2009 (O&M) -3- suit for specific performance, was allowed against Davinder Kumar judgment-debtor. It is further the case of the petitioner, that one firm M/s Charan Dass Mulkraj, Kapurthala, had also a decree in its favour against Davinder Kumar, and in order to execute the said decree, the property, which was to be purchased by the petitioner by way of specific performance, was ordered to be attached. The decree in favour of M/s Charan Dass Mulkraj was transferred to Sangrur for execution, as the property which was attached was situated at Sangrur and judgment-debtor was also resident of Sangrur. During the pendency of the execution application, the petitioner filed objections to the execution, however, the matter was compromised, wherein the petitioner had agreed to accept a sum of Rs.12.80 lac in lieu of specific performance of agreement to sell. The auction amount was sent to the Kapurthala Court, in view of the fact that the decree in favour of M/s Charan Dass Mulkraj, was passed by the Court at Kapurthala. The said execution application was accepted. The petitioner also moved an application before the Court at Kapurthala for release of DRO, claiming that he was entitled to an amount of Rs.12.80 lac out of the amount deposited, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties. The learned Executing Court at Kapurthala was pleased to dismiss the application moved by the petitioner, by recording a finding that the decree in favour of the petitioner, was that of Sangrur Court and, therefore, he should move execution application in the Court at Sangrur and the amount lying at Civil Revision No. 912 of 2009 (O&M) -4- Kapurthala can be called by said Court for disbursement to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the amount was not sent. Another application was moved before the Court at Kapurthala for release of DRO in his favour. The said application was dismissed, by recording that there was no order of Sangrur Court on file. The petitioner did not choose to challenge that order, but chose to file third application again claiming the same relief, which already stood declined to him, twice earlier. The learned Courts below, therefore, held that the third application was not competent, as the earlier two applications claiming the same relief had already been dismissed. The remedy, if any, with the petitioner was to seek execution at Sangrur and get amount transferred there, as per order dated 30.1.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala. No fault can be found with the order passed . The revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), as the petitioner has repeatedly filed applications, which were not maintainable. In view of order dated 30.1.2008 subsequent applications for relief already decided were not competent. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 24, 2009 R.S.