IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.03.2026 Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd., Ferozepur --Petitioner Versus M/S Ferozeshah Agro Pvt. Ltd. --Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI.

Present:- Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent.

***

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI.J (Oral)

1. Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

2. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 11.01.2024 (Annexure P-17) passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Ferozepur vide which the Execution Application has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner while giving facts of the case has submitted that an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent in the year 1999. Since the dispute arose between the parties and matter was referred for arbitration and award was passed on 09.07.2003 (Annexure P-2). Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed execution application before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Ferozepur on 16.03.2004 i.e. after about 08 months. Before the learned Executing Court, the respondent had taken an objection with regard to pendency of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the '1996 Act'), which they had filed on 04.12.2004 and because of this reason learned Executing Court vide order dated 14.1.2006 (Annexure P-5) adjourned the execution application sine die, although, by so observing that it is consigned sine die. In this way the execution application remained pending as it was consigned sine die.

4. Thereafter, objections filed by respondent under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, were dismissed on 10.03.2007 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner, therefore, filed an application vide Annexure P-7 before the learned Executing Court for hearing of the execution application and restoration thereof. This application was filed on 25.04.2007 immediately after the dismissal of the objections filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. In the meanwhile, the respondents also filed first appeal before this Court against the dismissal of their objections and the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2009 (Annexure P-8). Thereafter, the execution proceedings again commenced which is clear from order dated 27.10.2014 (Annexure P-9), whereby it was so directed by learned Executing Court that the warrant of attachment could not be issued and now the file be put up on 28.10.2014 for further proceedings and in this way the execution proceedings were in operation on 27.10.2014 i.e. after the dismissal of the appeal which was filed by the respondents. However, on 28.10.2014 vide Annexure P-10, the execution application was dismissed for non- prosecution. Immediately thereafter i.e. on 26.11.2014 vide Annexure P-11 the petitioner filed an application before learned Executing Court for restoration of the execution application. This application was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ferozepur on 17.04.2018 (Annexure P-13)

on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 42 of the 1996 Act. However, when an application was moved before learned Addl. District Judge, Ferozepur vide Annexure P-14 for hearing the execution application learned Addl. District Judge after hearing the execution application, dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 11.01.2024 (Annexure P-17) only on the ground of limitation that since the execution application had been filed beyond the period of 12 years, the same was hit by limitation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing arguments submitted that the impugned order passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Ferozepur was totally contrary to law and also to the facts of case. He submitted that the execut