Civil Revision No. 3672 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3672 of 2007 Date of decision: 7.05.2009. State Bank of India Petitioner Versus Bharpai and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate the petitioner. Mr. J.C.Malik, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 3 Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for Mr. M.P.Jain, Advocate for the respondents ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The impugned order, vide which thelearned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon, declined to restore the execution application (which had been ordered to be dismissed in default and also for want of filing of the process fee and Munadi fee vide order dated 26.4.2003), is under challenge at the hands of the decree holder-petitioner. In the course of the impugned plea, the decree holder made an averment that no official from the office of the decree holder entered appearance as their counsel had informed them that there was no need for appearance of a representative on every date of hearing. The further plea is that the counsel did not inform it that any Civil Revision No. 3672 of 2007 -2- **** process fee or Munadi fee was to be filed and further that the counsel himself also did not enter appearance on 26.4.2003. In the course of the counter, the respondents have placed on record certified copy of the order dated 26.4.2003 wheren the presence of the learned counsel stands recorded. The impugned order would indicate that execution application was not dismissed in default but only for want of prosecution inasmuch as the process fee and Munadi fee for issuance of warrants of attachment had not been filed. This has also been pointed out on behalf of the respondents that decree holder has not come to the Court with clean hands by having refrained from mentioning the fact that the execution application came to be dismissed for a such like default on three earlier occasions as well. The present is, thus, a case in which the petitioner-decree holder is indicated to have committed consistent dereliction in not filing the process fee and the Munadi fee. It has also not come to the court with clean hands by having omitted to mention that similar execution application were dismissed in default thrice earlier as well. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 07, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge