Union of India vs Arun Kumar Pandey

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party.

The petitioner judgement-debtor is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.06.2011, passed by the learned Sub-Judge-V, Dhanbad, in Execution Case No. 1 of 2011, whereby the objection filed by the petitioner judgement-debtor against the execution of the decree was dismissed by the Execution Court below.

The facts of the case, as is apparent from the impugned order, is that an Award was passed on 31.08.2010 in Arbitration Case No. 31 of 2004, after hearing both the parties, and the copies of the Award were given to both the parties and was sent to the Court for Execution. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Award was received in the Court on 14.09.2010. The decree-holder filed the execution case on 11.01.2011, wherein the notice was issued to the judgement-debtor. The judgement-debtor filed the application in the Court below on 3.6.2011, stating that he had filed the objection to the Award in the Court of Sub-Judge-1, in which the notice had been issued to the decree holder, and accordingly, the execution of the decree be stayed till his objection is decided in the Court of Sub-Judge-1. The Court below held that when the entire matter was pending in the Court of Sub-Judge-V, to the knowledge of both the parties, there was no occasion of filing any objection in the Court of Sub-Judge-1. The Court below also found that no objection was filed to the execution of the decree, within the prescribed time, by the judgement-debtor, and accordingly, dismissed the application filed by the judgement-debtor.

Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision was filed by the petitioner judgement-debtor, in which by order dated 24.08.2011, noting the fact that in the process of execution of the decree, the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, E.C. Railway, Dhanbad, had been attached, it was directed that if the petitioner judgement-debtor deposits the decreetal amount in the Executing Court, further proceedings in the Execution Case No. 1 of 2011, shall remain stayed.

Thereafter, by order dated 29.11.2013, this Civil Revision was dismissed for non-prosecution, also making clear that the interim order if any shall stand vacated. This matter remained dismissed from the year 2013 to 2019, when by order dated 28.09.2019 passed in C.M.P. No. 2 of 2014, this matter was restored to its original file. In other words Civil Revision remained dismissed from 29.11.2013 to 28.9.2019, and in the meantime there was no interim order of this Court, staying the proceedings in the Execution Case.

Though to the query of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Execution Case is still pending, but subsequently he submits that he has to seek instructions in the matter. From the record it is apparent that there is no reason whatsoever for keeping the execution case pending so long, and if in compliance of order dated 24.08.2011, the petitioner judgement-debtor had deposited the entire decreetal amount to the full satisfaction of the decree, in the Executing Court, the execution of the decree must have been satisfied thereby, after the stay order stood recalled by order dated 29.11.2013, while dismissing this Civil Revision for non-prosecution, and the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, E.C. Railway, Dhanbad, must have been released from the attachment, under Order XXI, Rule 55 of the Civil Procedure Code.

In that view of the matter no useful purpose is going to be served by adjudication of this Civil Revision, or keeping the matter pending at this belated stage, for seeking instructions once again. Even otherwise I do not find any merit in this revision, when the Court below has found that no objection to the execution of the decree was filed within time by the petitioner judgement-debtor, and the objection if any, was filed in a Court where the matter was not at all pending.

In the facts of this case, even if it is accepted, as submitted by learned counsel, that the Execution Case is still pending, it goes without saying that if the petitioner judgement-debtor had deposited the entire decreetal amount to the full satisfaction of the decree, in the Executing Court, the execution of the decree shall be satisfied thereby, and the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, E.C. Railway, Dhanbad, shall be released from the attachment, under Order XXI, Rule 55 of the Civil Procedure Code, if the attachment is still continuing.

This Civil Revision is accordingly, dismissed, with the direction / observation as above.