CIVIL REVISION NO.3788 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 30, 2008 P.S.E.B., Patiala and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Baldev Krishan Kaushal ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Ms. Sangita Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. In an application filed by the respondent under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, the executing Court has issued warrant of attachment on filing of list of properties to ensure execution of the order standing in favour of the respondent. Respondent is a decree holder in a suit filed by him, asking for declaration relating to promotion and preparation of fresh seniority list and giving appropriate seniority to the said respondent. This suit was decreed on 26.3.2004. The respondent-decree holder thereafter approached the petitioners on number of occasions and also served a legal notice but they failed to obey the judgment and CIVIL REVISION NO.3788 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: decree passed in his favour. Ultimately, he filed this application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. In reply filed by the petitioners, they have raised objection in regard to maintainability of the application. The plea of the petitioners is that the decree dated 26.3.2004 is a nullity as it was obtained by with-holding the vital documents in order to gain advantage. It is also disclosed that the petitioners have filed an appeal against the said judgment and order which is pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana and accordingly it is prayed that the application be dismissed being without any merit. The contentions raised by the petitioner before the Executing Court were considered and it was found that the circular dated 15.3.1974 was brought to the notice of the Court when the judgment and decree was passed in favour of the respondent decree holder and hence the main submission made by the petitioner that the order was obtained by with-holding the office order dated 15.3.1974 was found factually inaccurate. It was otherwise also rightly noticed that the Executing Court can not go behind the decree. The impugned order is, thus, made by the Executing Court. While making submissions before this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have filed an appeal against the judgment and decree which is under execution alongwith the stay application where prayer for staying the operation of the impugned judgment and decree is made. The fact that stay application is filed and no decision thereon has been taken is again repeated in para 7 of the petition, which is reproduced CIVIL REVISION NO.3788 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: below:- “The petitioners have filed the stay application because the same was ex-parte, the petitioner have led evidence in their stay application but there is no decision on the application till date and the same is now fixed for 12.8.2008 for arguments.” When the pendency of stay application in the appeal was stressed before the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to show when the stay application was moved and also to place on record the zimni order to indicate that the said application though was pressed but was not being dealt with. Application has now been filed to place on record the zimni orders, which has been allowed vide separate order. In fact, in the application now filed, the case set up by the petitioners is that they could not move an application, seeking stay of the impugned order as the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was pending and stay could only be pressed if the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. No such averment was made in the revision petition and rather, contrary assertions were made therein in regard to pendency of the stay application, which was stated to be pending for 12.8.2008 as noticed above. The zimni orders that have now been placed on record are from dated 12.10.2006 onwards. There is no indication as to when the appeal was filed against the order. It appears from the impugned order that judgment and decree being executed is dated 26.3.2004.Thus, there is apparently a delay of more than 2 years in filing the appeal. It is further seen that complete zimni orders have CIVIL REVISION NO.3788 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: not been placed on record. On 18.1.2007, the case was adjourned to 5.4.2007 for cross-examination of AW, whose affidavit was tendered on said date. The next order produced is dated 15.11.2007, which records the non-presence of RW. What transpired between 5.4.2007 to 15.11.2007 has not been placed on record. The orders would also show that case is now fixed for 12.8.2008 for evidence of the respondent, apparently for deciding the application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioners appears to be with-holding information and correct position from this Court. The averments made in the petition in regard to the pendency of stay application has concededly been incorrectly made. The respondent- decree holder is seeking execution of a decree, which is passed four years ago and the petitioners have apparently made a crude attempt to mislead or mis-inform the Court. It is only when the Court asked for an information in regard to the pendency of the stay application as averred in the revision petition that the correct position has surfaced. There is otherwise also no merit in the pleas raised by the petitioners and they are required to execute the decree standing in favour of the respondent-decree holder. No case for interference in the revision petition is made out on merits as well as having regard to the conduct of the petitioners in making an attempt to mislead the Court. Dismissed. July 30,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE