C.R.No.2482 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2482 of 2001 Date of Decision: 04.08.2009 Smt. Sarla Devi and others .....Petitioners Versus UOI and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The defendant who filed an application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was successful at the trial Court but in appeal filed by the Union of India, who was the plaintiff, the decree of rejection was set aside and the suit was directed to be remanded for fresh disposal. The Appellate Court also awarded costs in appeal when it directed the remand. The plaintiff sought execution for the costs which had been granted in the Appellate Court and the Executing Court rejected the objection raised by the defendant and ordered further prosecution in execution. It is this order of the Executing Court against which the revision petition is filed by the defendant. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that when the appeal was remanded, the plaintiff was entitled to obtain refund of the Court Fee paid in appeal and such an attempt was also C.R.No.2482 of 2001 -2- made by the plaintiff at the Appellate Court itself. However, refund was not ordered on the ground that there is no specific direction for refund of Court Fee. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that there was indeed a provision for refund of Court Fee and the order passed by the Appellate Court was erroneous. For the same reason, learned counsel would submit that the costs in appeal, which have been taxed on him includes the Court Fee which was refundable to the plaintiff and that amount cannot be recovered from him. 3. In my view, the submission is not tenable. If the order of the Appellate Court was in any way erroneous, it was that it did not provide for refund of the Court Fee. It cannot obtain to any benefit for a defendant when the Appellate Court had awarded costs in favour of the plaintiff. So far as the costs as awarded by the Appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant, it has become final between the parties and an Executing Court cannot traverse beyond what was granted in the Appellate Court decree. The order directing further process in execution for non-payment of costs, which was put in execution was perfectly justified. 4. The revision petition is devoid of merits and dismissed accordingly. If there is any interim order passed staying the trial of the suit, it is hereby vacated. If the suit has not been disposed of yet, the learned trial Judge is requested to dispose of the case on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 6 months. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 04, 2009 Pankaj*