Disposed

Renu v. M/S Fancy General Store & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Mar 2012CR/1628/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two consolidated revision petitions challenging delay in execution proceedings, the Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of the matters by directing the executing court to decide pending execution petitions within eight months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gurdaspur to dispose of the Execution Petitions expeditiously and not later than eight months.

Renu Vs M/S Fancy General Store & Anr. — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.R. No. 1628 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.3.2012.

¶3

Renu --Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

M/s Fency General Store & another

¶6

--Respondents

¶7

C.R. No. 1631 of 2012 (O&M)

¶8

Renu & others --Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s Fency General Store & another --Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶12

Present:Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

¶14

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

C.R. No. 1628 of 2012 (O&M) -2-

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Revision Petitions are disposed of, accordingly.

¶24

A copy of this order be placed on the connected file.

¶25

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶26

14.3.2012. lucky

Renu v. M/S Fancy General Store & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu v. M/S Fancy General Store & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanshi Ram Vs Canara Bank

Satyawan Vs Gram Panchayat, Chitain

Ishwar Singh Vs Vinod Kumar and Ors.

Karambir Vs Hari Chand etc.

Madan Lal and Ors. Vs Harmesh Singh

Ristematic Estate Private Limited Vs Gopi Chand Saini and Ors.