Civil Revision No.71 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.71 of 2010 Date of decision : 8.1.2010 M/s Saraswati Financers .....Petitioner Versus Darshan Lal and another ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. The avermentS, made in the course of this petition, are revelatory of the lackadaisical manner at which the proceedings in the matter were handled by the Presiding Officers who came to try this case from time to time. It is also apparent from the interim orders (pertaining to the period 2003 to 2009) that scant respect is being shown to the orders passed by this Court On judicial side, and also the instructions issued on the administrative side, for expeditious disposal of the execution proceedings. It hardly requires any reiteration that a party, winning at the hustings, has no reason to feel elated if the judgment does not get implemented and the execution thereof gets delayed by such a casual approach on the part of the Executing Court. It is apparent from the material obtaining on the file that petitioner had filed a plea for the recovery of certain amount against two persons i.e. principal debtor and also the guarantor. However, the name of principal debtor came to be omitted from the relevant judgment and decree. We need not, at the moment, go into Civil Revision No.71 of 2010 -2- **** the question about how exactly the omission aforementioned occurred. The fact remains that a plea filed by the petitioner herein for inclusion of the name of the omitted party is pending consideration for the past quite some time. It is further apparent from a perusal of the order dated 11.11.2008 that part arguments in the matter had been heard on that date and the matter was adjourned to 28.11.2009. The matter came to be adjourned thereafter, on one pretext or the other, and the application is lying undisposed of till date. Even the conceded large pendency in the judicial Courts would not exonerate the Presiding Officers from the responsibility of attaching deserved importance to an execution matter of this category particularly when it has been pending consideration before it for a period of about six years. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the interests of justice would be served by the issuance of a direction for time bound disposal of the execution proceedings pending since the year 2003. The petition shall stand disposed of in limine with a direction to the learned Executing Court to dispose of the execution petition itself by or on 31.3.2010. In view of the fact that this execution application had been pending since the year 2003, this Court would hope and trust that there will be no endeavour at seeking extension of the time aforementioned. There cannot be any doubt that it is only noticeable expeditious disposal, and that too upto its logical conclusion, which will enable the judiciary to redeem the justice delivery system of our country. The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court. Civil Revision No.71 of 2010 -3- **** Learned Sessions Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the case is disposed of by afore-mentioned date. Disposed of accordingly. January 8, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE