C.R. No. 3915 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3915 of 2007 Decided on : 27-01-2009 Jagir Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Harminder alias Binder Singh ....Respondent CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Parshotam Lal Singhla, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondents. JASWANT SINGH, J(Oral) The petitioner, who is the father of Manjit Singh-Judgement Debtor against whom an Award has been passed on 02.09.2003 by learned M.A.C.T., Ropar in a Claim Petition No.159, dated 11.11.1999, has filed the present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 2.6.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Executing Court in execution proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property of the petitioner, towards the liability of his son, cannot be attached as has been ordered by the learned District Judge, Ropar by impugned order dated 2.6.2007. A perusal of the impugned order dated 2.6.2007 (Annexure P/3) reveals that in the execution proceedings against the son of the petitioner namely Manjit Singh, Judgement- Debtor, a report had been received from C.R. No. 3915 of 2007 -2- the Naib Tehsildar, Guru Harsahai, to the following effect:- "....that there is no moveable or immovable property in the name of J.D.Manjit Singh. The order be made for effecting the recovery from the property of Jagir Singh." After the receipt of report from the Naib Tehsildar, Guru Harsahai, the matter came up before the learned District Judge, Ropar on 2.6.2007, on which date the impugned order (Annexure P/3) came to be passed, the operative part of which reads as under:- "....A letter be written to the concerned Revenue authority to effect the recovery from the property of Jagir Singh in case, his father is no more and he has inherited the said property by way of succession......" No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 2.6.2007 (Annexure P/3) has been passed by the learned District Judge without affording any opportunity of hearing to him and as such he has prayed that an opportunity be afforded to him before passing any order of attachment. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be justified and the same is accepted. A perusal of the impugned order dated 2.6.2007 (Annexure P/3) shows that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and his valuable rights have been taken away. C.R. No. 3915 of 2007 -3- Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 2.6.2007 (Annexure P-3) is set aside with the direction that petitioner would be afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing any adverse order of attachment of his property, in compliance of the execution of the award dated 2.9.2003. Disposed of. (Jaswant Singh) Judge 27th January, 2009. monika/joshi