IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4570 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.3.2009 State of Punjab and another ....Petitioners Versus Smt. Kaushalya Devi ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. BBS Teji, AAG Punjab. Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL J The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 22.5.2006 passed by the learned Executing Court dismissing the objections filed by the petitioners in execution of a decree passed by Civil Judge ( Jr. Divn), Barnala in favour of respondent which was upheld by this Court in RSA No. 1680 of 1983. Though the appeal filed by the petitioners before Hon'ble the Supreme Court is stated to be pending but there is no interim stay. Belatedly the objections were filed before the Executing Court on the plea that Special Leave Petition/Civil appeal is pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and till such time the same is decided the decree should not be executed and secondly that the Accountant General who is to pay retiral benefit is not a party to the decree. A perusal of impugned order shows that initially the petitioners had been taking adjournment for depositing of amount due to the respondent/decree holder for payment of money due to her in terms of decree passed in her favour. However later on the objections were filed which were dismissed by learned Court below considering the fact that part of the claim in the decree had already been satisfied and it remained to be satisfied partly. As there is no interim stay by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of this Court, learned Court below has not committed any illegality in executing the decree as the stay is not automatic on filling of Special Leave Petition in Hon'ble the Suprme Court. Even the plea that Accountant General is not a party to the decree is also misconceived as it is for the petitioners to get the case regarding retiral benefit of deceased husband of the respondent settled after submitting necessary papers to him. For the aforesaid reasons, the present revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 20.3.2009 JUDGE Reema