Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 787 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Amar Singh

2001-07-31

R.L.ANAND

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - Heard. The review application moved by the State/Judgment Debtor is hereby declined. 2. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 9th March, 1996 passed by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh who held as follows : "Since no counter statement has been filed by the JDs disputing the amount due as mentioned in the statement of the Decree-holder dated 10.2.1996 viz. Rs. 13,27,858/- it is ordered that warrants of attachment of the properties of the JDs for realisation of this amount be issued for 20.4.1996. PF and list of properties be furnished within three days if not already submitted." 3. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- A decree was passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh on 20.12.1985 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff with costs for recovery of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum compounded annually on the entire amount paid to the plaintiff/decree-holder on 3.2.1983, 29.3.1985, 25.2.1981, 23.12.1982, 10.8.1984, 13.5.1981, 12.1.1983 and 4.8.1984 and it was also ordered by the trial Court that interest so granted shall be recoverable w.e.f. 1.9.1979 to the date of their actual payment. This decree was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge on 3.12.1986. Second appeal was also filed in the High Court by the plaintiff Shri Amar Singh and vide judgment and decree dated 23rd May, 1990, the decree of the trial Court as well as of the first Appellate court was modified and it was ordered that plaintiff Shri Amar Singh would be entitled to the compound interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the arrears of salary w.e.f. the date on which the amount became due till the date of their actual payment. The High Court also awarded to the plaintiff/decree-holder compound interest at the same rate i.e. 12% per annum for the period during which the payment of gratuity and pension was delayed and, thus, the decree of the trial Court as well as of the first Appellate Court was modified. 4. Vide order dated 5th October, 1995 the learned trial Court directed the decree-holder, as well as the judgment debtor to submit their statement of accounts after calculating the amount. In pursuance of this direction, the decree-holder submitted the statement of accounts and, as per the decree- holder, an amount of Rs. 4. Vide order dated 5th October, 1995 the learned trial Court directed the decree-holder, as well as the judgment debtor to submit their statement of accounts after calculating the amount. In pursuance of this direction, the decree-holder submitted the statement of accounts and, as per the decree- holder, an amount of Rs. 13,27,858/- was due to him. The State did not file any statement of accounts on its behalf, as a result of which, the learned Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, vide the impugned order dated 9th March, 1996 ordered to the State for the payment of Rs. 13,27,858/-. The State is not satisfied with this order. Hence the present revision. 5. I have heard Shri A.G. Masih, learned Deputy Advocate General, on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Amar Singh respondent in person and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter pertains to the old record since 1947. The decree-holder admittedly was given some part payments in the years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 and for this reason the State was not in a position to file the counter statement of the decree-holder Shri Amar Singh. The counsel submitted that some more time should be given and case should be remitted to the executing Court because the decree-holder is not calculating the amount as per the dictum of the Honble High Court. 7. On the other hand, Shri Amar Singh decree holder who has appeared in person, vehemently submitted that the State in dilly dallying the matter in spite of the fact that sufficient time was given to the State to file counter statement to his statement, no efforts were made as a result of which the statement filed by him for a sum of Rs. 13,27,858/- should be taken as correct. He further submitted that the State has lost the litigation right up to the Honble Supreme Court so much so the review application of the State against the order dated 11th January, 2001 has been rejected today, vide which the State was directed to calculate the interest, therefore no further chance should be given to the petitioner. 8. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the opinion that the State should be given more time in order to file counter statement. 8. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the opinion that the State should be given more time in order to file counter statement. Admittedly, the matter pertains to the old account of the year 1947. Some payments were made by the State in the years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985. It is a matter of interpretation about the dictum passed by the Honble High Court. In these circumstances, I allow this revision, set aside the order dated 9th March, 1996 and given one more chance to the State to file a counter statement within one month from today before the executing Court which shall frame an issue as to the amount due to Shri Amar Singh decree-holder and decide the execution application within six months on receipt of a copy of this order. I may highlight here that the decree-holder is seeking execution of the judgment and decree which was passed as far back as in 1985. He is an old man. The executing Court shall take notice of this fact. If the decree- holder is entitled to his legitimate amount, those should be released to him without any delay. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20th August, 2001. Dasti order. Revision allowed.