The court confirmed that executing courts have limited authority, bound to enforce decrees without re-evaluation, and successive executions are permissible within statutory limits if the decree remains unsatisfied.

JUDGMENT :

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner–judgment debtor under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner– judgment debtor in the execution petition were dismissed.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are that the respondent–decree holder had filed an execution petition to execute the award dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. As per the record, the petitioner–judgment debtor had availed a housing loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent society, and upon default in repayment, the dispute was referred to arbitration, resulting in an award of Rs.14,23,928/- along with interest in favour of the respondent–decree holder.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had earlier filed execution petitions to enforce the said award, but the same were withdrawn upon alleged settlement between the parties, whereunder the petitioner was stated to have paid the decretal amount to the decree holder. It was further contended that criminal complaints filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were also withdrawn after receiving the payment from the petitioner. Thereafter, the decree holder again filed a fresh execution petition in May, 2025 in respect of the same award, which was objected to by the petitioner on the ground that the award amount already stood satisfied and that repeated execution petitions and criminal complaints were being filed to harass the petitioner and extract further money.

4. The matter being limited in scope and involving a short question of law, no notice was considered necessary to be issued to the respondent.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court.

6. The primary objection of the petitioner is that the entire award amount has been paid and that the respondent–decree holder, after receiving such payment, is misusing blank cheques and filing frivolous execution petitions. This plea, however, is not supported by any credible evidence. The Executing Court has meticulously examined the account statements placed on record and found that as per the verified statement of account (Mark X) and the admission made during proceedings, after adjusting the deposit of Rs.9,36,000/-, an amount of Rs.19,02,215/- is still pending as on 30.06.2025. The petitioner has failed to produce any receipt, acknowledgment, or document to substantiate his plea that the entire decretal amount stands paid. In absence of any such evidence, the Executing Court rightly held that the award has not been satisfied in full.

7. The next contention that the filing of multiple execution petitions is barred by law is equally untenable. The record clearly indicates that the earlier executions were withdrawn on the statement of the decree holder that payment had been assured and with express liberty to file a fresh execution petition in the event of non-payment. Therefore, filing of a fresh execution to recover the unpaid decretal amount is well within the limitation period and is legally maintainable. The Executing Court has correctly relied upon the settled position of law that successive executions for the same decree are permissible within twelve years from the date of the decree unless the decree has been fully satisfied.

8.