IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4669 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.7.2011 Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited … Petitioner versus Anant Ram and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the respondents ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner filed suit for recovery against respondent No.1 who had not made payment for the purchase of fertilizers. Suit was for recovery of Rs.2,00,200/- along with future interest. Suit was decreed on 7.4.1997 on the said amount along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of suit till the date of payment with costs. Respondent No.1 to discharge his liability, issued certain cheques in favour of the decree-holder which were bounced and consequently, the complaint was filed and at that juncture, respondent No.1 had paid Rs.2,10,000/- followed by another payment of Rs.40,000/-. Execution petition filed by the decree-holder was pending. An application was moved to dismiss the execution and with a direction to the decree-holder to return the said amount of Rs.40,000/- to the judgment-debtor. The executing Court vide impugned order dated 1.5.2010 has ordered for the refund of Rs.40,000/- to the judgment-debtor and for the release of land of the judgment-debtor, if attached, and has dismissed the execution petition as having been fully satisfied. Hence, this revision by the decree-holder. Counsel for the petitioner-decree-holder has argued that the decretal amount was Rs.2,00,200/- and decree dated 7.4.1997 C.R. No. 4669 of 2010 -2- stipulated further interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of suit till the date of payment of costs and with this, lakhs of rupees are still outstanding against the judgment-debtor. There was no settlement with the judgment-debtor though he had offered the same at the time of making payment of Rs.2,00,200/- which was never accepted by the decree-holder. In the order, there is also no indication as to how the execution stands fully satisfied when the petitioner-decree-holder denies any kind of compromise/settlement with the judgment-debtor. In this back-drop of the facts, the present revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the Court concerned to pass a fresh order after taking into account the proper calculations and back-ground of the case, purely on merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 18.8.2011. July 27, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE