Managing Director, Hafed and Another vs Devender Kumar

L.N. Mittal, J.—Judgment-debtors (JDs) have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 13.01.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Executing Court, thereby dismissing objections preferred by the petitioners. Suit filed by respondent-plaintiff Devender Kumar was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 05.09.2000 (Annexure P-1), upheld up to Hon''ble Supreme Court. Respondent-DH has filed execution petition, wherein the JDs filed objections (Annexure P-5) alleging that the decree being declaratory, is not executable and no monetary benefits can be recovered in the execution proceedings. It was also alleged that petitioner no. 2-Spinning Mill is under liquidation and official Liquidator has been appointed.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the pleas taken in the objections filed by the JDs/petitioners in the execution petition.

I have carefully considered the matter.

The contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners are completely untenable. Suit has been decreed to the following effect:-

...the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is accordingly decreed with cost to the effect that the order dated 15.5.1996 passed by Defendant no. 2 vide which the services of the plaintiffs were dismissed with immediate effect is held to be wrong and illegal, null and void not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The plaintiff be deemed to be in service with effect from 15.5.96 and is entitled to get his all back wages and all other benefits subject to the condition that the plaintiff was not gainfully employed any where also during the period of dismissal.

A bare reading of the aforesaid relief granted to the respondent-DH reveals that he has been held entitled to all the back wages and other benefits. Consequently, it cannot be said that he is not entitled to monetary benefits in execution of the aforesaid decree.

As regards liquidation of petitioner no. 2-Mill, the order of appointment of official Liquidator was allegedly passed on 23.03.1999 i.e. before passing of judgment and decree by the trial court. Consequently, this plea cannot be raised in execution proceedings and could be raised during trial of the suit.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that objections filed by JDs/petitioners have been rightly dismissed by the Executing Court. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the Executing Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In addition to the aforesaid, for reasons mentioned in order of even date passed in C.R. No. 2575 of 2005 titled The Managing Director, HAFED vs. Gaja Nand and another, contention raised by counsel for the petitioners, regarding petitioner no. 2 being separate entity from petitioner no. 1, cannot be accepted. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed.