Pepsu Road Transport Corp. ... vs Gurdev Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1314 P&H

CM-17039-CII-2010 in/&
CR-2308-2009 (O&M)                                                          -1-

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


206 (A)                                       CM-17039-CII-2010 in/&
                                              CR-2308-2009 (O&M)
                                              Date of Decision :20.01.2023

PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala
and another                                                      ...Petitioners


                                Versus

Gurdev Singh                                                    ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:    Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the appellants.

          Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.
                             ***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

Present revision petition has been filed challenging order dated

24.01.2009 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Court below in Execution

Application No.54 dated 15.06.2007 (Annexure P/2) by which, property of

the petitiones-judgment debtor being Account No.55100493367 in the State

Bank of Patiala has been attached.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that without going

into the fact that whether order of the Lower Appellate Court dated

16.04.1994 (Annexure P/1) by which, decree passed by the trial Court dated

16.04.1993 terminating the services of the respondent was held to be bad

and the relief was given for holding de-novo enquiry and to treat the

respondent-plaintiff under suspension w.e.f. 21.11.1987 onwards, has been

complied with or not, an attachment order was passed straightway. Learned

counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated

1 of 2

CM-17039-CII-2010 in/& CR-2308-2009 (O&M) -2-

24.01.2009 (Annexure P/3) is not sustainable for the reason that nothing has

been mentioned in the said order as to whether benefits of arrears of salary

etc. were granted to the plaintiff-decree holder or not.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even

the execution application dated 15.06.2007 filed by the respondent is not

maintainable at this delayed stage of passing of orders dated 16.04.1993 and

16.04.1994 by the trial Court and the Lower appellate Court respectively

being barred by limitation.

Learned counsel for the respondent-decree-holder concedes the

factum that though, order of attachment has been passed but the order does

record the finding that the decree of the trial Court dated 16.04.1993, which

has been modified by the Lower Appellate Court vide order dated

16.04.1994, has not been complied with.

In the absence of any finding that decree has not been complied

with, there could not have been an order of attachment especially, without

going into the objections raised by the judgment debtor qua the

maintainability of the execution application.

Keeping in view the above, order dated 24.01.2009 (Annexure

P/3) passed by the Court below in Execution Application No.54 dated

15.06.2007 is set aside leaving the parties to avail an appropriate remedy

before appropriate forum.

Revision Petition stands allowed.

January 20, 2023                     (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti                                         JUDGE
           Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
           Whether reportable :        Yes/No



                                      2 of 2