High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Punjab State Federation of Co-operative v. Smt. Manjeet Kaur & Ors - CR-4661-2005  RD-P&H 560 (6 February 2006)
CIVIL REVISION NO. 4661 of 2005
DATE OF DECISION: February 15, 2006.
Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.
Smt. Manjeet Kaur and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Jagdeep Bains, Advocate;
This revision petition has been filed against order dated August 11, 2005, vide which application of the petitioner/ judgment- debtor to recall order dated July 22, 2005, attaching its accounts was dismissed. It was case of the petitioner that as it has a valid claim against the respondent decree-holder, so its accounts be not attached.
Rather it be allowed to adjust the amount, which the petitioner is entitled to recover from the deceased/predecessor-in-interest of the decree- holders.
It is apparent from the records that the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents filed a suit against the petitioner/judgment- debtor for a declaration to the effect that the charge-sheet issued to him be set aside and further that a mandatory injunction be issued directing the petitioner and other defendants, in that suit, to release his retiral benefits, i.e., gratuity, leave encashment, pension etc. In that suit, defence was taken by the petitioner and other defendants that the deceased owe money to them and valid order has been passed against him under Section 54 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, on June 10, 1995, and the said order has become final. Despite that, trial Court decreed the suit filed by Shri J.S.Ahuja, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, and the petitioner was directed to release retiral benefits along with interest. It was further observed that to recover losses, if any, the Department may file a civil suit. Petitioner failed in appeal and in R.S.A. last portion of the order, as referred to above, was modified and liberty was granted to the petitioner to recover the amount, under any other law. It is not in dispute that after passing of the order by this Court on August 29, 2005, no fresh order, to effect recovery, against the deceased was passed. Reliance has been placed on an earlier order dated June 10, 1995, which was also put up as a defence before the trial Court, wherein decree was passed in favour of the deceased/respondents. It is apparent from the records that the trial Court, appellate Court below and this Court have looked into the defence taken up by the petitioner, that some money is due to the petitioner and it is competent to recover the same from the deceased, out of his retiral benefits., despite that suit was decreed against the petitioner. If at this stage, petitioner is allowed to adjust that amount, which he claimed before the trial Court , when decree was passed, it would amount to negating the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which has been affirmed upto this Court. May be, as per liberty granted by this Court, petitioner may, if entitled, recover the amount, if any, from the deceased or his estate, as per law. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that even execution has already been filed by the petitioner for that purpose and the same is pending. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed.
Copy of the order be given Dasti on payment of usual charges.
February 15, 2006. ( Jasbir Singh )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.