C. R. No. 806 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 806 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 05, 2010 Smt. Kamlesh and others .... Petitioners Vs. Charan Dass .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by legal representatives of original Judgment Debtor (JD) Gaya Parshad (since deceased). Charan Dass – respondent Decree Holder (DH) filed execution petition for execution of decree dated 28.10.2002 passed in his favour against Gaya Parshad JD (now represented by the petitioners). Following relief, as reproduced in paragraph 2 of the revision petition, was granted to the respondent in the said decree :- “Relief :- In view of my findings on the forgoing issues, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. The defendant is directed to handover the vacant possession of the suit property of the plaintiff C. R. No. 806 of 2010 2 within one month of the plaintiff depositing Rs.12,500/- in the Court. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to record room.” Respondent had also filed an ejectment petition against Gaya Parshad under The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Evicition) Act, 1973 (in short – the Rent Act). Gaya Parshad was ordered to be ejected from the same property by Rent Controller also. First appeal preferred by the petitioners against the ejectment order was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioners have now filed Civil Revision No.3584 of 2008 in this Court challenging the said ejectment order. In the said revision petition, vide interim order dated 21.07.2008 (Annexure P-1), dispossession of the petitioners has been stayed, subject to payment of rent. Learned Executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala Cantt, vide impugned order dated 23.01.2010 (Annexure P-4), ordered issuance of warrant of possession of the suit property in execution of decree dated 28.10.2002, passed in Civil Suit in favour of respondent against petitioners' predecessor. The petitioners have challenged the said order in the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that respondent DH was required to deposit the amount of Rs.12,500/- within one month from the passing of decree dated 28.10.2002, but the respondent deposited the said amount on 13.10.2005 i.e. after almost three years and so, the said decree is inexecutable. The contention cannot be accepted because the relief granted in the decree, as reproduced herein above, does not stipulate that the amount of Rs.12,500/- was to be deposited by respondent DH within one month of the passing of the decree. On the other hand, the said relief stipulates JD Gaya Parshad was to hand over vacant possession C. R. No. 806 of 2010 3 of the suit property to DH respondent within one month of deposit of amount of Rs.12,500/- by the DH respondent. Consequently, the decree has not become inexecutable. On the other hand, after deposit of Rs.12,500/- by the respondent on 13.10.2005, the petitioners were supposed to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent, but since the petitioners did not do so, the respondent is entitled to seek possession of the suit property by execution of the decree. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that in view of interim stay (Annexure P-1), granted by this Court in Civil Revision No.3584 of 2008, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed from the suit property. This contention, although attractive on first blush, also cannot be accepted. By way of interim order (Annexure P-1), dispossession of the petitioners from the suit property has been stayed in execution of ejectment orders, which have been challenged in the said revision petition and not in execution of decree dated 28.10.2002, which has admittedly attained finality and is sought to be executed. Admittedly, there is no stay against execution of decree dated 28.10.2002. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court. The respondent is entitled to seek possession of the suit property in execution of decree dated 28.10.2002. The revision petition is without any merits and is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 05, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE