High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Dharam Singh Bhardwaj v. State of Haryana & Anr - CR-1798-1994  RD-P&H 461 (31 January 2006)
Case No. : C.R.No.1798 of 1994
Date of Decision : February 15, 2006.
Dharam Singh Bhardwaj .... Petitioner
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.
* * *
Present : Mr.Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Advocate
for the respondents.
The plaintiff-decree holder is the petitioner before this Court.
Vide order dated December 24, 1993, the learned Executing Court had disposed of the execution petition filed by him as fully satisfied.
The decree dated March 13, 1989 was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The operative portion of the decree reads as under :- "As per the result of the findings given on aforesaid various issues the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and the same is, hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the effect that the revised Tentative Seniority List of Upper Division Clerks (H.S.E.B. Circle Cadre) circulated by defendant no.2 on behalf of defendant no.1 vide memo
No.3893/4023/CE/CS/SL-8 dated the Chandigarh, 25 August, 1977 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff, and the seniority of the plaintiff be fixed from the date of his promotion/appointment as U.D.C. i.e. 27.7.1964 with all consequential benefits of promotion, monetary, benefits etc. flowing from the same C.R.No.1798 of 1994 : 2 :
with consequential relief of permanent injunction that the defendants are restrained from promoting any junior employee to the plaintiff without correcting the seniority list. However, the defendants would bear the costs of the suit. Decree-sheet be drawn accordingly and file be consigned to the record-room."
Shri Ashish Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-judgment debtor states that vide order dated October 22, 1992, the plaintiff-decree holder had been assigned his due seniority as U.D.C.
with effect from July 27, 1964 as per the decree in his favour and therefore, no further relief was possible in execution proceedings.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find that there is any merit in the present petition. As noticed above, a decree was passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff holding that he was entitled to his seniority as U.D.C. with effect from July 27, 1964. The aforesaid seniority has been granted to the plaintiff vide communication dated October 22, 1992. However, it appears from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the Executing Court that the decree holder was wanting further relief inasmuch as he was wanting his promotion above Hans Raj Sachdeva, Des Raj Singla and Sewa Ram Chawla. Admittedly, the aforesaid persons were not parties to the suit nor any decree was passed against them. In these circumstances, no such relief could have been granted to the plaintiff-decree holder by the Executing Court.
It is well settled that an Executing Court can not go behind the decree. In these circumstances, the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff- petitioner has been fully satisfied.
Consequently, I find that there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
February 15, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.