WP 13662.08 Writ Petition No. 13662 of 2008 18/11/2011 Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Petition is directed against order dated 30-04-2008; whereby, an application under section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking adjustment of the amount towards the decreetal amount has been rejected. In respect of works contract of diversion of Gorbandha Nallah at Bina Project dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent which being referred to the Sole Arbitrator resulted in passing of Award dated 30-06-2000 for a sum of Rs. 49,02,500 in favour of the petitioner herein and of Rs. 9,11,680 towards 50% of liquidated damages in favour of the respondent. An objection against the award filed by respondent herein was rejected by Additional District Judge, Sidhi, on 27-09-2001. Against the said order, respondent herein preferred Misc. Appeal No. 1855/2001 before this Court. The appeal was partly allowed by order dated 12-12-2006 whereby the claim for extra work and interest thereon was quashed. During pendency of said appeal-M.A. No. 1855/2001 wherein by order dated 25-09-2002 an WP 13662.08 I.A. No. 1975/2002 was disposed of with the direction : “I.A. No. 1975/2002. An amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lac) has been released in favour of Respondent No. 1 subject to furnishing adequate security. Shri Ruprah submits that for realising this amount, whatever property the appellant has, it has been made subject of security before the trial Court. He also submits that remaining amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lac) deposited in the Court be also released in favour of the respondent No. 1 on the security already furnished by him. Let Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs Five Lac) out of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lac) deposited in this case pursuant to Court direction dated 17-1-2002 passed in MCP No. 28/2002, be released in favour of Vijay Bahadur Singh of Vijay Bahadur Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd., after proper proper identification by his counsel, on furnishing an undertaking to this Court that in the event of the appeal being allowed, he would pay back the amount of Rs. Five Lac, which is directed to be paid, to the appellant within a month from the date of receipt of the order. Remaining amount of Rs. Five Lac shall be invested with the Nationalised Bank for a period of one year in the first instance, extendable in case the appeal is not heard within this period.” After final decision in appeal, the petitioner was under an obligation to have honoured the order dated 25-09-2002 and should have refunded the amount. Instead an application under section 144, CPC was filed for restitution. The executing WP 13662.08 Court rejected the application vide impugned dated 30-04-2008 observing : “bl vk'k; dk xkjaVh i= 9-2-02 dks fu"ikfnr djk;k x;k Fkk vkSj ;g rF; vfookfnr gS fd fMdzhnkj dk vokMZ fujLr gks pqdk gS rc ,salh fLFkfr esa btjk; izdj.k dz0 81@06 esa fMdzhnkj Onkjk tks jkf'k izkIr dh xbZ Fkh og 'krksZ ds vuqlkj okil tek djus ds fy;s mRrjnk;h gS vkSj blds fy;s i`Fkd ls fu"iknu ekeyk izLrqr djuk vko';d ugha gS D;ksafd fu"iknu ekeys esa tks jkf'k en~;wu dh vksj ls tek dh xbZ Fkh vkSj ;g jkf'k l'krZ tek dh xbZ Fkh vkSj tc ewy vokMZ gh fujLr gks pqdk gS rc ml jkf'k dks vnk djus ds fy;s mRrjnk;h gS vkSj ,salk gh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns'k gSA vr,o tgka rd bl jkf'k dk iz'u gS tks dqy ianzg yk[k #i;s gksrh gS bl jkf'k dks vkosnd vfoyac ,u- lh- ,y- dks vnk djs vkSj 'krksZ ds eqrkfcd bl jkf'k dks tek djsA tgka rd bl jkf'k ij C;kt dk iz'u gS rks ,salh dksbZ 'krZ ;k ,salk dksbZ vkns'k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; Onkjk ugha fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj u gh ,salh dksbZ 'krZ Fkh fd bl laca/k esa dksbZ C;kt ns; gksxkA” The reasons assigned by the Executing Court when examined on the touchstone of the given facts of the case stand the scrutiny and does not warrant any interference. In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE SC