State of Punjab and Others v. Bharat Bhushan

CR-7304-2023o(O&M)oo oooo[1]o INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoAT CHANDIGARH oooooooooo ooo o

¶1ooo CR-7301-2023o(O&M) Dateoofodecision:o01.12.2025 StateoofoPunjaboandoothers ...Petitioners Versus BharatoBhushan ooooooo...Respondent

¶2ooo CR-7304-2023o(O&M) Dateoofodecision:o01.12.2025 StateoofoPunjaboandoothers ...Petitioners Versus BharatoBhushan ooooooo...Respondent CORAM:o HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoVIKASoBAHL Present: Mr.oSandeepoSingh,oAAG,oPunjab,oforotheopetitioners. (Inobothotheocases) Mr.oK.B.oRaheja,oAdvocateoforotheorespondent. (Inobothotheocases)o **** VIKASoBAHL,oJ.o(ORAL)

¶1Thisoorderowillodisposeoofotwoorevisionopetitions.oTheofirst beingoCR-7301-2023ofiledobyotheoStateoofoPunjaboandoothersoVs.oBharat Bhushan,oinowhichochallengeoisotootheoorderodatedo10.07.2023opassedoby CR-7304-2023o(O&M)oo oooo[2]o theoAdditionaloDistrictoJudge,ooBathindaoinoCM-335-2021,otitledoaso"State ofoPunjaboandoothersoVs.oBharatoBhushan",owherebyoanoapplicationounder Sectiono5oofotheoLimitationoActoforocondonationoofodelayoinofilingothe appealohadobeenodismissed.oTheosecondorevisionopetitionobeingoCR-7304-2023otitledoaso"StateoofoPunjaboandoothersoVs.oBharatoBhushan"oinowhich challengeoisotootheoorderodatedo09.12.2021ovideowhichotheoExecutingoCourt had o dismissed o the o objections o filed o by o the o Judgment Debtors/petitioners/State o of o Punjab o and o others. o In o the o said o revision petition,ochallengeoisoalsoomadeotootheoorderodatedo10.07.2023ovideowhich appealofiledobyotheoStateoofoPunjaboagainstotheoorderodatedo09.12.2021ohad alsoobeenodismissed. ARGUMENTSoONoBEHALFoOFoTHEoPETITIONERS:-o

¶2Learnedocounseloforotheopetitioners-Stateohasosubmittedothatoin theopresentocase,osuitofiledobyotheorespondentowasodecreedoex-parteovide judgmentoandodecreeodatedo21.01.2017o(AnnexureoP-3).oItoisoarguedothatoon

29.03.2017,otheopetitionersofiledoanoapplicationounderoOrdero9oRuleo13oCPC andoinotheosaidoapplication,oitohadobeenostatedothatotheyolearntoaboutotheoex-parteojudgmentoono28.02.2017.o oItoisofurtherosubmittedothatotheosaid applicationowasoallowedoono20.12.2018oandosuitowasorestoredotooitsooriginal number o and o thereafter, o the o respondent o had o filed o revision o petition challengingotheoorderodatedo20.12.2018owhichowasoallowedoono13.09.2019. Itoisoarguedothatosinceotheopetitioners,owhoowereotheodefendantsoinotheosuit, hadoconcurrentorightoofofilingoanoapplicationounderoOrdero9oRuleo13oCPCoas welloasoanoappeal,othus,oafteropassingoofotheojudgmentodatedo13.09.2019,othe CR-7304-2023o(O&M)oo oooo[3]o petitionersowantedotoochallengeotheojudgmentoandodecreeodatedo21.01.2017 andoaccordingly,ofiledoanoappealoalongowithoanoapplicationoforocondonation ofodelay.oItoisosubmittedothatoinotheoapplicationoforocondonationoofodelay,oit wasospecificallyostatedothatoopinionoregardingofurtherolegaloactionotoobe takenoinopursuanceoofotheoorderoofotheoHighoCourtowasoreceivedoon

05.02.2020oandothereafter,otheomatterowasoconsideredoandotheoappealowas preferredoono14.10.2021.oItoisosubmittedothatoinoMarcho2020,oCOVID pandemicohadostartedoandobyoexcludingotheosaidoCOVIDoperiod,owhichowas inotheofirstoinstanceouptoo14.02.2021,odelayoinoappealowasoofoonlyo11odays. Itoisosubmittedothatosinceotheodelayohadooccurredoonoaccountoofotheofactothat legaloopinionohadobeenoreceivedobyotheopetitionersoono05.02.2020oandothere wasoalsooCOVIDoperiod,othus,otheosaidodelayoshouldohaveobeenocondoned, whereas, o vide o impugned o order o dated o 10.07.2023, o application o for condonationoofodelayohasobeenodismissed.

¶3Learnedocounseloforotheopetitioners-Stateohasofurtherosubmitted thatoevenoCR-7304-2023odeservesotoobeoallowed,oinasmuchoas,oinothe executionoproceedings,otheopetitioners-StateoofoPunjabohadofiledospecific objectionsotootheoeffectothatotheyohaveofiledoanoappealoagainstotheojudgment dated o 21.01.2017 o and o had o further o stated o that o in o the o proceedings culminatingointoojudgmentodatedo21.01.2017,oex-parteoproceedingsohad beenowronglyoinitiatedoagainstotheopetitionersoandothus,otheoexecution proceedingsotooimplementotheojudgmentoandodecreeodatedo21.01.2017owere illegaloandoagainstolawoandotheosaidoexecutionoapplicationodeservedotoobe dismissed.oItoisoprayedothatobothotheorevisionopetitionsobeoallowed. CR-7304-2023o(O&M)oo oooo[4]o ARGUMENTSoONoBEHALFoOFoTHEoRESPONDENT:-

¶4Learnedocounseloforotheorespondent,oonotheootherohand,ohas submittedothatotheorespondentoiso60%ohandicappedoandotheopetitioners-State hasodelayedotheoproceedingsoatoeveryostage.oItoisoarguedothatotheorespondent hadofiledotheosuitoinotheoyearo2015owhichowasodecreedobyotheotrialoCourtoon

21.01.2017oandosinceothen,otheoproceedingsoareopendingoandotheodue benefitohasonotobeenogivenotootheorespondent.oItoisosubmittedothatoafter passingoofotheojudgmentodatedo21.01.2017,otheopetitioners-Stateohadotwo optionsoi.e.,oeitherotoofileoanoappealoagainstotheosaidojudgmentoandodecreeoor toofileoanoapplicationounderoOrdero9oRuleo13oCPCoandotheoStateoofoPunjab optedotoofileoanoapplicationounderoOrdero9oRuleo13oCPCowhichowasoinitially allowedobyotheotrialoCourtobutoultimately,oono13.09.2019,otheorevision petitionoagainstotheosaidoorderofiledobyotheorespondentowasoallowed.oItois submittedothatoitowasoheldoinotheosaidocivilorevisionothatotheopetitionersohad beenorightlyoproceededoagainstoex-parteoandothus,oex-parteojudgmentoand decreeowasoupheld.oItoisosubmittedothatotheosaidoorderowasopassedoinothe presenceoofotheocounseloforotheoStateoandothereoisonothingoonorecordoto showothatotheopetitioners-Stateohadoeveroappliedoforotheocertifiedocopyoof theosameoandothus,otheoperiodoofolimitationoforofilingotheoappeal,owhichowas initiallyofromo21.01.2017,owouldoinoanyocaseostartofromo13.09.2019,oeven inocaseotheopleaoofotheopetitioners-Stateoisotakenotoobeotrueoonoitsofaceovalue.

¶5ItoisosubmittedothatoevenoifotheoallegedoCOVIDoperiodofrom

15.03.2020otillo14.02.2021,oasoarguedoonobehalfoofotheoStateoisoexcluded, thenoalsooappealohasobeenofiledoono14.10.2021,owhichoisoafterotheoperiodoof CR-7304-2023o(O&M)oo oooo[5]o moreothanosevenomonthsofromo14.02.2021.oItoisoarguedothatonooNotification givingoanyoreferenceotooanyoexemptionoregardingoCOVIDopandemicohas beenoannexedoandomoreover,osinceotheolimitationoperiodohadoalready elapsedopriorotootheostartingoofotheoallegedoCOVIDopandemic,oasoarguedoby theocounseloforotheopetitioners-State,othus,onoobenefitoofotheosaidoperiodocan beogivenotootheopetitioners-State.oLearnedocounseloforotheorespondentohas soughtorelianceouponoaojudgmentoofotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocase titledoasoStateoofoMadhyaoPradeshoandoothersoVs.oBherulal,oreportedoas 2020(10)oSCCo654,oinosupportoofohisoarguments.oItoisosubmittedothatothe respondentoisorunningofromopillarotoopostotoogetohisorightfulodues.

¶6WithorespectotooCR-7304-2023,oitoisosubmittedothatobothothe objectionsoraisedobyotheopetitioners-State,owhichohaveobeenohighlighted beforeothisoCourtodeserveotoobeooutrightlyorejected.oItoisoarguedothatoitoisothe dutyoofotheoExecutingoCourtotooexecuteotheodecreeoandotheopleasowhichoare soughtotoobeoraisedoonobehalfoofotheopetitionersocannotobeoraisedobeforeothe ExecutingoCourt. ANALYSISoANDoFINDINGS:-

¶7ThisoCourtohasoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopetitioners-State ofoPunjaboandoothersoasowelloasolearnedocounseloforotheorespondentoandohas perusedotheopaper-bookoofobothotheorevisionopetitionsoandofindsothatoboth theorevisionopetitionsoareomeritlessoandodeserveotoobeodismissedoandothe impugnedoordersopassedoinobothotheocasesodeserveotoobeoupheldoforothe reasonsodetailedohereinafter.o

¶8Itoisonotoinodisputeothatotheorespondent-BharatoBhushanohad CR-7304-2023o(O&M)oo oooo[6]o filedoaosuitowithotheofollowingoprayers:o-o "Suitoforodeclarationotootheoeffectothatotheoplaintiffoisodeemed toohaveobeenopromotedoasoSSoMasteroinomasteroCadreofromothe yearo2006oieotheodateoofopromotionoofomasterocadreo(Social studyoteachers)oonowhichoemployeesouptootootheoyearo2001 were o promoted o and o the o plaintiff o is o entitled o to o pay o all consequentialoserviceobenefitsoincludingopay,oseniorityoetc alongwithointeresto@o18%operoannumofromotheodueotilloactual payment. And Suitoforomandatoryoinjunctionodirectingotheodefendantsotoogive payotootheoplaintiffofromoDecembero2001otoo30.1.2008oasofixed byodefendantono.6oandoentriesomadeoinohisoservicebook."

¶9Theosaidosuitowasodecreedovideojudgmentodatedo21.01.2017.oA perusaloofotheosaidojudgmentoandodecreeodatedo21.01.2017o(AnnexureoP-3) would o show o that o it o was o recorded o by o the o trial o Court o that o the defendants/presentopetitionersofailedotooappearoandothus,owereoproceeded againstoex-parte.oItoisofurtheronotoinodisputeothatotheopetitioners/defendants didonotochooseotoofileoanoappealoagainstotheosaidojudgmentoandodecreeodated

21.01.2017oandochoseotoofileoanoapplicationounderoOrdero9oRuleo13oCPCoon

29.03.2017oforosettingoasideotheosaidojudgmentoandodecree.oTheoapplication filedobyotheopetitioners-StateowasoallowedobyotheotrialoCourtovideoorder datedo20.12.2018.oHowever,oimportantlyoagainstotheosaidoorderodated

20.12.2018,oaocivilorevisionoi.e.oCR-795-2019owasofiled,oinowhich,odue noticeowasoissuedotootheoStateoofoPunjaboandotheosaidorevisionopetitionowas allowedobyoaoCoordinateoBenchoofothisoCourtovideoorderodatedo13.09.2019 afterohearingotheocounseloforotheorespondent-BharatoBhushanoasowelloasothe CR-7304-2023o(O&M)oo oooo[7]o co"nse4ofo&ot%eo tate.o.not%eosaido#"d*:ent+oito3asos)ecifica445oo$se&0ed t%atoitoco"4donoto$eo&ef"tedot%atot%eo)&esento)etitione&s>defendantso%ad @no34ed*eoofot%eo)endenc5oofot%eocase.o2%eo&e4etianto)o&tionoofot%eosaid o&de&odatedo13.0;.201;oiso&e)&od"cedo%e&ein$e4o3:- "Civil Revision No.795 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.09.2019 Bharat Bhushan ......Petitioner Vs State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present: Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Maloo Chahal, D.A.G., Punjab. Xxx xxx xxx xxx [12]. ……….. Factum of receipt of the aforesaid letter was communicated to the petitioner by defendant No.5 vide letter No.4014/155 dated 30.05.2017 under RTI Act, 2005 (Annexure PI8). Even the pendency of civil suit was noticed in the intra*departmental communication from the office of Director Prosecution and Litigation and Addl. Secretary, Punjab Government, Chandigarh to District Attorney, Bathinda and the intimation issued by the District Attorney, Bathinda to Director Education Department (Sr.Sec) Punjab, Mohali vide letter No.567/DA dated 01.03.2016. [13]. All these material facts could not be refuted by the respondents with reference to any material on record suggesting that defendant No.5 was not having any knowledge regarding pendency of the suit. [14]. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Bathinda is not legally sustainable and is thus set authenticity of this document CR-7304-2023o(O&M)oo oooo[8]o aside.oThisorevisionopetitionoisoallowed.oNormaloconsequences toofollow."

¶10Aoperusaloofotheoaboveoorderowouldoshowothatocounseloforothe StateoofoPunjabohadoappearedoinotheosaidocivilorevisionopetition.oItoisonot disputedothatotheoperiodoforofilingoanoappealoagainstotheojudgmentoand decreeoiso30odays.oTheosaido30odaysohadostartedofromo21.01.2017owhenothe ex-parteojudgmentoandodecreeowasopassed.oEvenoinocaseotheodateoof initiationoofoperiodoofolimitationoisotakenofromo13.09.2019oi.e.,otheodate whenotheocivilorevisionowasodecided,othenoalso,oitoisoapparentothatotheosaid limitationoelapsedoono13.10.2019.oHowever,oadmittedly,ooanoappealowas filedobyotheopetitionersoono14.10.2021oi.e.,oafteroaoperiodoofomoreothanotwo yearsoevenofromotheoabovesaidodateoofo13.10.2019oandoregardingotheosaid period,othereoisonooplausibleoexplanationonorosufficientocauseohasobeen shown.oThereoisonothingotooshowothatotheopetitioners-defendantsoever appliedoforocertifiedocopyoofotheosaidoorderooroafteropreparationoofotheosaid copy,osomeotimeowasotakenobyotheoRegistryotooprepareotheosame.oEvenoin theoapplicationoforocondonationoofodelay,onoodateoforoapplyingoforothe certifiedocopyoofotheosaidoorderohadobeenomentioned.oItohadomerelyobeen statedothatoopinionoregardingofurtherolegaloactionowasoreceivedoinotheooffice ofotheopetitionersoono05.02.2020.oOnceotheocounseloforotheoStateohad appearedoinotheorevisionopetitionoandotheocaseowasodecidedoafterohearingoall theopartiesoconcernedoincludingotheoStateoCounsel,othenoperiodoofolimitation cannotopossiblyostartofromotheodateowhenotheoopinionoregardingofurther legaloactionowasoallegedlyoreceivedobyotheopetitionersoinotheirooffice. CR-7304-2023o(O&M)oo oooo[9]o Moreover,onothingohasobeenoreferredotooonobehalfoofotheopetitionersotooshow thatoopinionoregardingofurtherolegaloactionowasoreceivedoinotheoofficeobyothe petitionersoono05.02.2020.

¶11ArgumentoraisedobeforeothisoCourtotootheoeffectothatothereowas COVIDofromo15.03.2020otoo14.02.2021oisoalsoocompletelyounsubstantiated. NooNotificationoonotheosaidoaspectohasobeenoreferredotooonobehalfoofothe petitioners.oMoreover,oonceoperiodoofolimitationohadoelapsedomuchoprioroto

15.03.2020oi.e.,oono21.02.2017o(oneomonthofromo21.01.2017)ooroatobestoon

13.10.2019o(oneomonthofromo13.09.2019)othen,onoobenefitoforotheosaid alleged o COVID o pandemic o can o be o given o to o the o State. o Moreover, importantly, o even o after o 14.02.2021, o appeal o has o been o filed o by o the petitioners-Stateoono14.10.2021oi.e.,oafteroaodelayoofo8omonthsoandohasonot beenofiledowithinooneomonthoevenofromotheosaidodate.oThus,oatoeveryostage, theopetitioners-Stateohaveobeenolaxoinopursuingotheocase.oTheoaverments madeoinotheoapplicationoforocondonationoofodelayoareovagueoandodoonot constituteoaosufficientocause.oTheoFirstoAppellateoCourtovideoimpugned orderodatedo10.07.2023ohadorightlyoobservedothatodelayoinotheopresentocase wasoofomoreothano1155odaysowhereasoinotheoapplicationoforocondonationoof delay,oitohadobeenowronglyostatedothatothereowasoonlyo11odaysoofodelay. Thus,oevenotheoapplicationodoesonotoseekocondonationoofotheoexactonumber ofodaysoofowhichotheodelayohasooccurredoandorather,owithoutoanyobasis,ohas statedothatothereoisoonlyodelayoofo11odays.oTheoFirstoAppellateoCourtohad furtheroobservedothatothereowasonooexplanationogivenobyotheopetitionersofor theodelayohavingooccurredoafteropassingoofotheoorderobyotheoCoordinate CR-7304-2023o(O&M)oo oooo[10]o BenchoofothisoCourtodatedo13.09.2019oandothatolimitationohadoelapsedomuch priorotootheoonsetoofoCOVID,owhichoasoperotheocaseoofotheopetitionersohad startedofromo15.03.2020.oTheopetitioners,oasoobservedoinotheoimpugned order,ohadoconcurrentoremediesoandothus,oshouldohaveoavailedobothothe remediesoofofilingoanoappealoandoanoapplicationounderoOrdero9oRuleo13 CPCowithinotheoperiodoofolimitationoprescribedoforoeachoofotheoremedies and o thus, o should o have o filed o an o appeal o against o the o judgment o dated

21.01.2017 o within o one o month o therefrom. o In o the o present o case, o the petitionersodidonotoevenofileotheoappealowithinoaoperiodoofooneomonthofrom

13.09.2019,oafterotheorevisionopetitionofiledobyotheorespondentowasoallowed, andotheoex-parteojudgmentowasoupheld,oowhereasotheosaidoappealohasobeen filedoono14.10.2021.oNoodueoexplanationohasobeenogivenoforotheoinordinate delayoinofilingotheoappeal.

¶12TheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoofoStateoofoMadhya Pradeshoandoothers o(Supra),ohadotakenointooconsiderationotheolawolaid downobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoofoOfficeoofotheoChief PostoMasteroGeneraloandoothersoVs.oLivingoMediaoIndiaoLtd.oandoanother reportedoaso(2012)o3oSCCo563,oinowhichoitowasoobservedothatoitowasoright time o to o inform o all o the o Government o bodies, o their o agencies o and instrumentalitiesothatounlessoreasonableoandoacceptableoexplanationoforothe delayoisogivenoandothereowasobonafideoeffortomadeoonotheirobehalfotoopursue theocase,othereowasonooneedotooacceptotheousualoexplanationogivenobyothe StateothatofileowasokeptopendingobeforeovariousoDepartments.oInotheosaid judgment,oitowasoalsooobservedothatotheocondonationoofodelayoisoan CR-7304-2023o(O&M)oo oooo[11]o e=ce)tionoandocannoto$eo"sedoasoanoantici)atedo$enefitofo&o-otie&n:ent De)a&t:ents+oaso4a3os%e4te&soetie&5oneo"nde&ot%eosa:eo4i*%toandot%e&e s%o"4do$eonoos)ecia4o$enefitofo&oaofe3.o,fte&oconside&in*ot%eoa$otiesaid #"d*:entoinoOffice of the Chief Post Master General and others's case (Supra)+ot%eoAonH$4eo ")&e:eoCo"&t+oa)a&tof&o:odis:issin*ot%eo )ecia4 9eatieo!etitionoasoti:eo$a&&ed+o%adoa4sooi:)osedocostsoofoRs.25+000>-oon t%eo)etitione&- tate.oRe4etianto)o&tionoofot%eosaido#"d*:entoiso&e)&od"ced %e&ein$e4o3:- "3. …..This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court inoOffice of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.o(2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under: "12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition inothis Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of authenticity of this document CR-7304-2023o(O&M)oo oooo[12]o various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/yearsodue to considerable degree of procedural redtape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay." Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded! 4 to 6. xxx xxx

¶7We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers authenticity of this document CR-7304-2023o(O&M)oo oooo[13]o responsible.

8.oLookingotootheoperiodoofodelayoandotheocasualomanneroin which o the o application o has o been o worded, o we o consider appropriate o to o impose o costs o on o the o petitioner-o State o of Rs.25,000/-o(Rupeesotwentyofiveothousand)otoobeodepositedowith theoMediationoandoConciliationoProjectoCommittee.oTheoamount beodepositedoinofouroweeks.oTheoamountobeorecoveredofromothe officersoresponsibleoforotheodelayoinofilingotheospecialoleave petitionoandoaocertificateooforecoveryoofotheosaidoamountobeoalso filedoinothisoCourtowithinotheosaidoperiodoofotime.

9.oTheospecialoleaveopetitionoisodismissedoasotimeobarredoinoterms aforesaid.

10.oWeomakeoitoclearothatoifotheoaforesaidoorderoisonotocomplied within o time, o we o will o be o constrained o to o initiate o contempt proceedingsoagainstotheoChiefoSecretary."

¶13Theolawolaidodownoinotheosaidojudgmentocompletelyosupports theocaseoofotheorespondentoherein.oNoocontraryojudgmentohasobeenocitedoon behalfoofotheopetitioners.oThus,otheoimpugnedoorderopassedoinoCR-7301-2023oisoinoaccordanceowitholawoandodeservesotoobeoupheld.

¶14With o respect o to o the o objections o raised o in o the o execution proceedings,owhichoisotheosubjectomatteroofochallengeoinoCR-7304-2023,oit wouldobeorelevantotoonoteothatoitoisotheodutyoofotheoExecutingoCourtoto executeotheodecree.oTheoobjectionsoraisedobyotheopetitioners,owhooareothe judgmentodebtors,owhichohaveobeenohighlightedobeforeothisoCourtotoothe effectothatoex-parteodecreeowasowronglyopassedoandothatoappealohadobeen filedobyotheopetitionersoagainstotheojudgmentodatedo21.01.2017oandoonothe saidoaccount,otheoexecutionoapplicationoshouldobeodismissedoare,oonothe faceoofoit,omeritless.oAdditionally,oitowouldobeorelevantotoonoteothatotheoex-CR-7304-2023o(O&M)oo oooo[14]o parteoproceedingsohaveobeenoheldotoobeoinoaccordanceowitholawobyothe CoordinateoBenchoofothisoCourtoinoCR-795-2019odecidedoono13.09.2019, andoitoisonotodisputedothatotheosaidoorderohadonotobeenofurtherochallenged. Further,oevenoappealofiledobyotheopetitioners-Stateoagainstotheojudgment datedo21.01.2017ohasobeenodismissedovideoorderodatedo10.07.2023,oonothe groundoofolimitation,owhichoorderohasobeenoupheldobyothisoCourtoinoCR-7301-2023.oThus,obothotheosaidoobjectionsodoonotoevenosurvive.oAtoany rate,otheoExecutingoCourtocannotogoobeyondotheodecreeoandoapparently,othe objectionsohaveobeenofiledoonlyotoodelayotheoexecutionoofotheodecree,owhich isoagainstotheomandateoofolawolaidodownobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoin theocaseotitledoas oPeriyammalo(Dead)othroughoLRsoandoOrs.oVersus RajamanioandoAnr.oreportedoaso2025oSCCoOnlineoSCo507,oinowhichothe Executing o Courts o have o been o directed o to o dispose o of o the o execution proceedingsowithinosixomonths.oThus,otheoimpugnedoordersowhichoare subjectomatteroofochallengeoinoCR-7304-2023oalsoodeserveotoobeoupheld.

¶15Keepingoinoviewotheoabovesaidofactsoandocircumstances,oboth theorevisionopetitionsoareomeritlessoandoareoaccordinglyodismissedoandothe impugnedoordersopassedoinobothotheosaidorevisionopetitionsoareoupheld.

¶16Allotheopendingomiscellaneousoapplications,oifoany,oshallostand disposedoofoinoviewoofotheoabovesaidoorder.

01.12.2025 (VIKASoBAHL) Pawan oooooooooooooooooJUDGE Whetherospeaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whetheroreportable:- Yes/Noo