Ram Kishan Yadav v. Utter Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jul 2025CR/5658/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution proceedings; executing court cannot go behind finalized decree dated 03.04.2012; objection that 1st and 2nd ACP applicable only w.e.f. 01.01.1996 (new entrants) not raisable at execution stage when no such stand taken during suit or appeal; execution dismissed as satisfied — set aside; execution ordered to be restored; Punjab and Haryana High Court; CR-5658-2017; decided 16.07.2025; Deepak Gupta, J.; decree-holder Ram Kishan Yadav vs UHBVN and others.

What did the court decide?

Petition accepted; impugned order dated 01.07.2017 set aside; the concerned Executing Court directed to restore the execution and proceed further with the same in accordance with law. ¶¶27

Ram Kishan Yadav Vs Utter Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition accepted; impugned order dated 01.07.2017 set aside; the concerned Executing Court directed to restore the execution and proceed further with the same in accordance with law.

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the Executing Court could go behind the final decree dated 03.04.2012 and dismiss the execution as satisfied by upholding the judgment-debtors' objection that the 1st and 2nd ACP scales applied only with effect from 01.01.1996 (i.e., only to new entrants) and not w.e.f. 22.10.1991 and 22.10.2001 as decreed.

¶¶26

Court's answer

An Executing Court cannot go behind the decree: once the reliefs granted by the trial Court by way of judgment & decree dated 03.04.2012 have attained finality, the Executing Court could not decline the claim of the plaintiff/decree-holder.

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

Since no stand was taken by the respondents during pendency of the suit (either before the trial Court or before the first Appellate Court) that the plaintiff/decree-holder was not entitled to 1st ACP or 2nd ACP with effect from 22.10.1991 and 22.10.2001 respectively, the respondents could not raise any such objection in the execution.

¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Deepak Gupta, J.), in CR-5658-2017 decided on 16.07.2025, allowed the civil revision preferred by decree-holder Ram Kishan Yadav against UHBVN and others, setting aside the Executing Court's order dated 01.07.2017 which had dismissed the execution as satisfied after upholding the judgment-debtors' objection that the 1st and 2nd ACP scales were applicable only with effect from 01.01.1996 (to new entrants) and not from 22.10.1991 and 22.10.2001 as decreed. The suit had been partly decreed on 03.04.2012 (Rs. 7,000 compulsory deposit with 9% interest; 9% interest on Rs. 10,177/- and on Rs. 1,25,339/-; ACP No. 1 and ACP No. 2 w.e.f. 22.10.1991 and 22.10.2001); the respondents' appeal was dismissed on 21.01.2013 and SAO No.63 of 2013 was withdrawn on 08.07.2014, so the decree stood finalized. Holding: an executing court cannot go behind a decree that has attained finality, and since no stand denying the ACP entitlements from the decreed dates was taken during the suit or the appeal, the objection could not be raised at the execution stage. The Executing Court was directed to restore the execution and proceed further with it in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

226

¶4

CR-5658-2017 Date of Decision.:16.07.2025

Ram Kishan Yadav

…..Pe--oner

Vs.

U0er Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Others .….Respondents

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶10

Present:Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶11

Mr. Kewal Krishan, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Pe��oner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2017 passed by learned Execu�ng Court in execu�on case �tled as “Ram Kishan Yadav vs. UHBVN and others”, whereby his execu�on has been dismissed as sa�sfied.

¶15

Suit filed by the plain�ff/decree-holder (pe��oner herein) against the defendants/judgment-debtors (respondents herein) was decreed on 03.04.2012 and the following relief was granted:

¶16

“In view of my findings on the above issues, present suit succeeds and is hereby partly decreed. A decree for declara�on to the effect that the plain�ff is en�tled to an amount of Rs. 7,000- towards compulsory Deposit with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of his re�rement �ll realiza�on, and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs. 10,177/- from 10.10.2002 �ll 11.07.2008 on amount of Rs. 1,25,339/ from 01.05. �ll 04.04.2004

¶17

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.17 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CR-5658-2017

¶19

and the plain�ff is also en�tled to ACP No. 1 and ACP No. 2 w.e.f. 22.10.1991 and 22.10.2001, is passed in favour of the plain�ff and against the defendants. The defendants are directed to make the payment of Decree sheet be referred above. prepared. File be consigned to the record room a2er interest as due compliance.”

¶20

Appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed by first Appellate Court on 21.01.2013. SAO No.63 of 2013 filed by respondents against judgment dated 21.01.2013 of the Appellate Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.07.2014 and no further appeal was filed. It is thus the admi>ed posi�on that the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2012 has a>ained finality.

¶21

Some of the benefits have been released to the decreeholder/pe��oner as per the decree but his claim regarding 1^st and 2^nd ACP have been disputed on the ground that these were applicable only to the new entrants. The Execu�ng Court accepted the objec�ons of the JDs in this regard by holding that the 1^st ACP and 2^nd ACP scales are applicable with effect from 01.01.1996 and not 01.01.1991 by way of impugned order dated 01.07.2017 and dismissed the execu�on as sa�sfied.

¶22

Assailing the aforesaid order, it is contended by learned counsel that Execu�ng court could not go behind the decree. It is further pointed out that no such stand was taken by the respondents during pendency of the suit either before the trial Court or before the first Appellate Court to the effect that plain�ff was not en�tled for 1^st ACP and 2^nd ACP with effect from 22.10.1991 and 22.10.2001 and therefore, no such objec�on could be raised in the execu�on. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order but could not convince this Court.

¶23

Having considered submissions of both the sides, this Court is

¶24

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.17 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CR-5658-2017

¶26

of the view that impugned order cannot be sustained. It is not disputed by counsel for the respondents that no such stand was taken during pendency of the suit that plain�ff/decree-holder i.e. pe��oner herein was not en�tled for 1^st ACP or 2^nd ACP with effect from 22.10.1991 and 22.10.2001 respec�vely. As such, the respondents could not raise any such objec�on in the execu�on. Once the said reliefs have been granted by the trial Court by way of judgment & decree dated 03.04.2012, which has a>ained finality, the Execu�ng Court could not go behind the decree so as to decline the claim of the plain�ff/decree-holder in this regard.

¶27

As such, the present pe��on is accepted. The impugned order dated 01.07.2017 is hereby set aside. The concerned Execu�ng Court is directed to restore the execu�on in ques�on and proceed further with the same in accordance with law.

¶28

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE July 16, 2025 Nee�ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶29

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.17 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ram Kishan Yadav v. Utter Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishan Yadav v. Utter Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Malkit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Umed Vs Tarawati Alias Tara Devi and Others

Kurda Ram Vs Jumla Mustarka Malkan

Ram Saran & Ors. Vs Sushil Kumar & Ors.

Gurjit Singh Vs State of Punjab