IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3105 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision 19.11.2009 M/s Punjab Tractors Limited, a Public Limited Company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Phase-IV, SAS Nagar, District Mohali. ...... Petitioner VERSUS M/s Setia Automobiles, Kilianwali, District Faridkot and another ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.C.Setia, Senior Avocate with Mr.Rajesh Sethi, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.01.2007, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, whereby execution application filed by the petitioner-Decree Holder was dismissed being time barred. There is no denying a fact that the decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 31.05.1990 and execution application was preferred on 08.06.1992. In the said execution, the judgment debtors had filed the objection petition and the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.05.1994. However, the execution was dismissed in default on 14.01.1995. Thereafter, review application was filed which was dismissed in default on 19.07.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in order to safeguard its rights, he had filed another application for execution on 24.04.2002 and this was done only to avoid the objection that executionxc Civil Revision No.3105 of 2007 -2- may not become time barred. He has placed on record certified copy of the order dated 01.06.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar, showing that execution application No.14 of 2002 was filed on 24.04.2002 over which a precept was issued by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar. Thus, apparently, the execution cannot be said to be time barred. The Executing Court has not taken into consideration the aforementioned aspect of the case into consideration. It also appears that the documents with regard to filing of the execution on 21.04.2002 were not placed on record before the Executing Court, therefore, the Executing Court took the view with regard to the execution being time barred. As such, I accept this petition, set aside the impugned order dated 29.01.2007 and remit the case back to the Executing Court, Sirsa to proceed in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Court for executing the decree on 10.02.2010. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 19.11.2009 mamta-II