CR No.99 of 2008 (O&M) - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.99 OF 2008 (O&M) Date Of Decision: 07.09.2009 **** Devinder Singh Sihota . . . . Petitioner VS. S.S. Tir . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. D.S. Gurna, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed by the petitioner Judgement Debtor against the order dated 1st September, 2008 passed by the Executing Court, Bathinda, dismissing his objections to the effect that the third Execution Application filed by the respondent-Bank is barred by limitation. Notice of motion was issued and in pursuance thereto, the respondent- Bank has been duly served. No one, however appeared on behalf of the Bank on the previous date as well as today. The point of consideration is as to whether the third Execution Application filed by the respondent-Bank is within the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act? CR No.99 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - The suit for recovery filed by the respondent-Bank was decreed on 26th February, 1991. The Bank filed first execution application on 21st May, 1991 which was dismissed in default on 7th August, 1993. The 2nd Execution Application was also dismissed in default by the Executing Court on 14th August, 2000 by passing the following order:- “Present: Counsel for the decree holder. Application not filed. So this execution application is dismissed in default. However, decree holder is entitled to file fresh execution application and same would be started from the stage, this execution is dismissed. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Announced Sd/- 14.8.2000 Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Bathinda 14.8.2000” The third execution application has thereafter been filed on 27th May, 2003. The petitioner’s objections are that though the third application was permitted to be filed by the executing Court vide its order dated 14th August, 2000, nonetheless it could be filed within the period of limitation of 12 years only. That period of limitation allegedly expired on 25th February, 2003. This aspect, however, has not been considered by the Executing Court which has erroneously proceeded with on the premises that the Executing Court while dismissing the second execution petition in default on 21st August, 2000 had permitted the respondent-Bank to file a fresh execution. Suffice it to say that the entitlement of the respondent-Bank to file another execution application was meant to satisfy the decree in its favour. The said order cannot be construed to mean that the said execution application could be filed at any point of time or that the period of limitation for filing such application had been extended as no such power is apparently vested with the Executing Court. Be that as it may, no final decision can be taken in this regard without giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent-Bank. CR No.99 of 2008 (O&M) - 3 - For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 01.09.2008 is hereby set aside and the Executing Court is directed to decide the matter afresh and, if so required, frame appropriate issue(s) in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 02.09.2009 shonkar