CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Renu vs M/s Fency General Store and another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 14 March 2012 · Citation: (2012) 03 P&H CK 0219

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227
CASE NUMBER
C.R. No. 1628 of 2012 (O and M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 326 words

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—In view of the common facts and identical prayer having been raised, both these revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order at the motion stage itself. The present petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are for seeking directions to the Executing Court for expeditious disposal of the Execution Petitions which had been instituted on 13.2.2009.

2.

It is stated that the plaintiffs-petitioners had filed two suits for recovery of Rs. 3,46,950/- and Rs. 3,90,670/- respectively against the defendants-respondents. The suits were decreed vide judgement and decree dated 9.8.2008. As per counsel no appeals were preferred against the same and the judgements and decrees of the Trial Court have become final.

3.

The present petitioners filed an execution petition before the Executing Court on 13.2.2009. The defendants-respondents having put in appearance filed objections dated 17.4.2009 to which the present petitioners filed reply on 12.6.2009. Thereafter, the Judgement Debtors moved an application for amendment of the objections to which also the present petitioners have filed a reply.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Executing Court has adjourned the matter on numerous occasions on the request of the Judgement Debtors. On perusal of the zimni orders as reproduced in para 6 of the instant petitions, it becomes apparent that on few occasions the matter had been adjourned, in fact on the request of the decree holders.

5.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that an Execution Petition instituted in the month of February, 2009 is still pending. As such, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present revision petitions with a direction to the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gurdaspur i.e. the Executing Court to dispose of the Execution Petitions filed by the present petitioners expeditiously and in any case not later than eight months from today.

6.

Revision Petitions are disposed of, accordingly. A copy of this order be placed on the connected file.