Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Kaur vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation on 23 September, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CR No.4688 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.4688 of 2012
Date of Decision:23.09.2013.
Hardeep Kaur
....Petitioner
Versus
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate,
for the respondent.
****
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (Oral)
Instant civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 23.05.2012 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Patiala whereby the application filed by the respondent-judgment debtor for reviewing the order dated 28.10.2011 vide which the respondent- judgment debtor was ordered to prepare draft of ` 10,76, 161/- in the Kumar Parveen 2013.09.25 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4688 of 2012 2 name of petitioner-decree holder, has been allowed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Before appreciating the controversy in issue, it would be appropriate to reproduce a relevant extract of decree dated 13.08.2010 which reads as under:
"------. It is hereby ordered that suit of the plaintiff stands decreed and to release all dues/benefits including the gratuity, provident fund, family pension, leave encashment etc. payable due to death of Sh. Dalip Singh, Driver No.P-11/25 PRTC and which have been kept by defendant Corporation as FDRs in compliance of court order dated 2.12.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala alongwith interest from due date till realization at commercial bank rate, in favour of plaintiff. However, parties are left to bear their own costs."
A perusal of decree dated 13.08.2010 reveals that suit of the petitioner-plaintiff stands decreed directing the respondent-defendant to release all dues/benefits including the gratuity, provident fund, family pension, leave encashment etc. payable to the petitioner due to death of Sh. Dalip Singh, Driver No.P-11/25, PRTC as well as release of FDRs which were kept by the defendant as FDRs in pursuance to the order dated 02.12.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that in the impugned order, the Executing Court has wrongly recorded the finding that the petitioner is not entitled to family pension and he is Kumar Parveen 2013.09.25 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4688 of 2012 3 required to file a separate suit.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of family pension, as Dalip Singh, husband of the petitioner, had never adopted the same.
I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
Since the issue has arisen during the execution of decree, the provision of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure are attracted which read as under:
"47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree.- (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
(2) XXXXXXXX (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.
[Explanation I. For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit. Explanation II.(a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and
(b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such Kumar Parveen 2013.09.25 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4688 of 2012 4 property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.]"
From the very perusal of Section 47 of the CPC, it is clear that when the question relating to the execution and discharge/satisfaction of the decree arises between the parties or their representatives, the same shall be decided by the Executing Court, no separate suit is required to be filed.
In view of above, the instant revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.05.2012 (Annexure P-7) is set aside and case is remanded to the Executing Court. The Executing Court is directed to decide all the issues raised by the petitioner in this case.
Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 09.10.2013.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge September 23, 2013 parveen kumar Kumar Parveen 2013.09.25 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh