JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these petitions, therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of a by a common judgment. 2. Both these petitions are directed against the orders dated 29.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Mandi, in Execution Petition Nos. 5/13/04 and 4/13/04 respectively, whereby he dismissed the execution petitions under Order IX Rule 2 CPC for non compliance of the previous orders passed by the Court. 3. It is contended by the petitioner-Corporation that all the requisite steps, as were required under law, had been taken by them, therefore, the execution petitions could not have been dismissed in the manner as has been done by the learned executing court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record carefully. 5. A perusal of zimini orders, which have been annexed by the petitioner-Corporation with these petitions, fortifies their submission that all requisite steps as required from time to time had been taken by it. That apart, it is rather unfortunate that the learned executing court failed to take into consideration the fact that it was dealing with recovery of public dues and, therefore, there was no question of it having adopted such a hyper technical view to dismiss the execution petitions. The executing Court has further failed to take into consideration that the legitimate rights that too after passing of a decree in favour of the petitioner-Corporation could not have been frustrated, especially when the conduct of the respondent was absolutely inequitable and unjust. After all, the aim of equity is only to promote honesty. 6. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner-Corporation is "State" within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India and is thus an extended arm of the government and, therefore, its dues are public dues. 7. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has even gone to the extent of laying down that where public dues are to be collected, some amount of coercion is necessary to make a recalcitrant defaulter, who has fraudulently secreted his assets to screen them from being proceeded against to pay the dues. (Refer: Ram Narayan Agarwal vs. State of U.P. , (1984) AIR SC 1213) 8. (Refer: Ram Narayan Agarwal vs. State of U.P. , (1984) AIR SC 1213) 8. Therefore, in such circumstances, there was no occasion for the executing court to have invoked the provisions of Order IX Rule 2 CPC. 9. Having said so, I find merit in these petitions and the same are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 29.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Mandi, in Execution Petition Nos. 5/13/04 and 4/13/04 respectively are set aside. 10. The parties through their respective counsel shall appear before the learned executing court on 30.7.2018. 11. The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of.