Desh Raj Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Desh Raj Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to do the needful, i.e., comply with/implement the judgment dated 26.09.2023 in CWP No. 3671 of 2023 (payment of arrears to the petitioner), positively within four weeks if not already done, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation.

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued to the respondents to implement/execute the judgment dated 26.09.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3671 of 2023 (payment of arrears to the petitioner). +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the undertaking given by learned counsel for the respondents, the Court saw no reason to keep the petition alive and disposed of it, directing the respondents to do the needful (comply with the judgment under execution) positively within four weeks, if not already done, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to get the proceedings revived for appropriate action towards implementation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition No. 252 of 2024 filed under Rule 16 (1) of the H.P. High Court Original Side Rules by Desh Raj against the State of H.P. and others, seeking directions to implement/execute the judgment dated 26.09.2023 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 3671 of 2023, wherein the writ petition stood disposed of on the respondents' undertaking that arrears would be paid to the petitioner within four weeks. The respondents having failed to pay the arrears despite the specific direction, the petitioner approached this Court. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, accepting notice, undertook that compliance with the judgment under execution had been effected, or would be effected within four weeks. Sandeep Sharma, J., orally disposed of the petition on 09.04.2024, directing the respondents to do the needful positively within four weeks, failing which the petitioner was granted liberty to seek revival of the proceedings so that appropriate action in accordance with law could be taken towards implementation of the judgment/order sought to be executed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Execution Petition No. 252 of 2024 Date of Decision: 09.04.2024

Desh Raj

……...Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P and others

…....Resp

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant Execution Petition filed under Rule 16 (1) of the H.P. High Court Original Side Rules, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/execute the judgment dated 26.09.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3671 of 2023, titled as Desh Raj vs. The State of

H.P. and others.

2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment sought to be executed, reveals that this Court having taken note of the undertaking given by the respondents that arrears shall be paid to the petitioner, disposed of the aforesaid petition with a direction to do the needful within a period of four weeks. Since, despite there being specific

2 -

direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents failed to pay the arrears to the petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order sought to be executed, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of four weeks from today.

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid undertaking given by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and the same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful, positively within a period of four weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.

9^th April, 2024 tarun

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge