IMPORTANT POINT
Execution of decree is a serious matter.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member— This complaint was filed in the year 1999.

2. Counsel for the parties present. Counsel for the complainant/Decree Holder, heard. Counsel for the Opp. party/Judgment Debtor, not heard.

3. This Commission, had passed the following operative order on 10.2.2010:

“For the foregoing discussion, complaint is partly allowed with direction to opposite party No.1, to deposit amount of Rs.15 lakhs along with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of complaint and costs of Rs.25,000 with this Commission, within four weeks from today. On deposit of this amount, the opposite party No.1 will be entitled to dismantle and remove the gasifier plant at their expenses, within four weeks. Deposited amount will be released in favour of the complainant by the Registry, on filing of affidavit that the gasifier plant has been removed by opposite party No.1. Complaint against opposite party No.2 against whom no relief was claimed, is dismissed”.

4. It is apparent that various opportunities were given to the Judgment Debtor, but it is not performing its part of duty and wants to delay the case, unnecessarily.

5. Vide order dated 29.7.2015, the objection petition filed by the OP-1, was dismissed, subject to the payment of Rs.1,00,000 as costs. It was also given time to make the payment within 30 days’, otherwise, the same would carry interest @ 10% p.a., till realisation. The said order has not been complied with, till now. Consequently, we are of the view that the counsel for the Judgment Debtor is not entitled to be heard, again and again.

6. The present application (MA 637/2015 for release of amount) has been filed by the Decree Holder/complainant. In this application, the Decree Holder has prayed that the amount deposited by the OP No.1/Judgment Debtor, be released. Due to non-performance of the duty in respect of the removal of gasifier plant by OP1, the complainant could not file an affidavit. On 30.10.2015, an affidavit was filed in this context.

7. The Judgment Debtor/OP1 is, intentionally not taking steps to remove the gasifier plant from the premises of the premises of the Decree Holder/complainant. Five years’ have elapsed after the passing of the said judgment and still the gasifier plant has not been removed, as directed. In Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904 the Hon’ble Apex Court, observed, as under:

“Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders, the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forum, only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law’s delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system”.

8. In Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors., (Civil Appeal Nos. 4912-4913 of 2011, decided on 4.7.2011), similar view was taken, as in Ravinder Kaur’s case (supra).

9. Counsel for the OP submitted that he should be heard. He cannot be heard until and unless the sum of Rs.1,00,000, as ordered by us, vide order dated 29.7.2015, has been complied with. Consequently, the OP is given last and final opportunity to remove the gasifier plant, till 31.12.2015, failing, which, the Registry will be at liberty to release the amount deposited by the OP/Judgment Debtor, vide order dated 10.2.2010, along with interest, accrued thereon, in favour of the complainant, after accepting Indemnity Bond, immediately. The Decree partly stands satisfied. To come up for further compliance of the Decree, on 1.2.2016.

Revision Petitions allowed.