Back
1988 Supreme(P&H) 492
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.V.Sehgal, J.
State Of Punjab
Versus
Tara Chand A C O -iii
Civil Revision No. 2812 of 1985,
Decided On : OCTOBER 5, 1988
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party may file another execution application for consequential benefits following from a declaratory decree, even if a previous execution application had been consigned to the record after payment of costs.
Headnote:
Execution Application - Consequential Benefits - The court held that the respondent was entitled to consequential benefits following from the declaratory decree and directed the petitioner to make the payment as ascertained to him.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, after being reinstated in service as per a declaratory decree, filed an execution application claiming payment of salary for the period between the impugned order and his reinstatement, as well as annual increments and other benefits. The petitioner argued that a previous execution application had been fully satisfied by payment of costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objection raised by the petitioner was misconceived and that the respondent was entitled to file another execution application for the consequential benefits following from the decree.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent could file another execution application for the consequential benefits following from the declaratory decree, despite a previous execution application being consigned to the record after payment of costs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the fact that the earlier execution application had been consigned to the record was immaterial and did not prevent the respondent from filing another execution application when the benefits flowing from the decree had not been afforded to him.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs. The court directed the parties to appear before the Executing Court to proceed with further steps in pursuance of its order to recover the amount from the petitioner in the execution pending before it.
D.V.Sehgal, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.1985 passed by the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Patiala, during the course of execution of the decree dated 15.7.1967 passed in favour of the decree-holder respondent and against the State of Punjab petitioner
2. By virtue of the decree a declaration was granted to the effect that the impugned order dispensing with the services of the petitioner was illegal and void. An appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid decree was dismissed on 11.11.1968. It is admitted on both. sides that in pursuance of the declaration granted through the decree the respondent was reinstated in service. He filed an execution application on 18.1.1974, The petitioner paid the costs of the suit and the execution application was consigned to the record.
3. The respondent then filed another execution application on 23.4.1980 claiming that as consequence of the declaratory decree he was entitled to the payment of the salary for the period intervening the dates of the impugned order and his reinstatement. He also claimed annual increments and other consequential benefits. Vide the impugned order the learned Executing Court had held that the respondent is entitled to these consequential benefits and has directed the petitioner to make payment amount ascertained to him.
4. The objection which was taken by the petitioner in the trial Court, which has once against been pressed before me, is that the execution application filed by the respondent on 18.1.1974 had been fully satisfied by payment of the costs. The respondent can not file another execution application for the consequential benefits following from the decree.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parses. I am of the considered view that the objection is wholly misconceived. The respondent was not estopped from filing yet another execution application when the benefits flowing from the decree had not been afforded to him. The fact that the earlier execution application has been consigned to the record is immaterial and does not stand in the way of the second execution application.
6. I, therefore, find no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
7. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 2.11.1988, on which date it shall proceed to take further steps in pursuance of its order dated 31.5.1985 to recover the amount from the petitioner in the execution pending before it.
