High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 04 P&H CK 0008

Vaibhav Chaudhary and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 29 April 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Chand Gupta, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 2813 of 2011 (O and M)

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 358 words

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

C.M. No. 11301-CII of 2011

1.

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Civil Revision No. 2813 of 2011

2.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate order for setting aside order passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Fatehabad, vide order dated 29.10.2010, Annexure P1, in Execution No. 3 filed on 5.2.2000/7.11.2002 in LAC No. 364 of 1997 decided on 29.10.2010, vide which execution proceedings of the Petitioner have been dismissed being fully satisfied.

3.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Fatehabad.

4.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this Court had directed learned trial Court earlier for deciding the matter afresh in view of judgment rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI), . It is further contended that thereafter one calculation sheet, Annexure P2, was filed by the State and another calculation sheet, Annexure P3, was filed by Petitioner and, however, learned trial Court accepted the calculations filed by the State without discussing as to how the calculations filed by the State is correct and as to how calculations submitted by present Petitioner is incorrect. It is further contended that rather the calculations submitted by present Petitioner is as per dictum settled by Hon''ble Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh''s case (supra).

5.

Perusal of the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Fatehabad, shows that the order is not a speaking one on the point. Though it has been mentioned in the order that in calculation sheet submitted by the Petitioner he has not adjusted part payment as per mode indicated in Forms D. However, there is no discussion as to how learned Court arrived at the said conclusion.

6.

Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned Additional District Judge-II Fatehabad, is directed to decide the matter afresh by passing a speaking order on the point.