STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RAM SARUP BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petition Nos. 86 of 1989 filed by State of Punjab judgment debtor and 148 of 1989 filed by Ram Sarup Bhalla-decree holder have been directed against the order of the executing Court dated 20.9.1988 by which the judgment-debtors have been held competent to deduct an amount of Rs. 31,573.93 from the amount recoverable by the decree-holder. It has been further held in the impugned order that an amount of Rs. 18,425/- had already been deducted by the judgment-debtors from the amount already paid to the decree-holder. However, the exact amount payable to the decree holder has not been determined in the impugned order. As regards entitlement of the judgment debtors to recover the aforesaid amount, it has been held that Rule 7(3)(a)(5) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume I, Part I, empowers the State Government to recover such amounts which were earned by an employee during the period of his dismissal.

(2.) In the revision petition filed by the decree-holder, it has been argued that Rule 7(3)(a)(5) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules is inapplicable to the petitioner and that R.N. Mittal, J. while deciding the previous revision petition did not hold that Rule 7(3)(a)(5) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules is applicable. In other words, it has been argued by the decree-holder that the aforesaid rule was not the subject matter of interpretation before R.N. Mittal, J. at the time of decision of the previous revision petition. On the other hand, it has been argued by Mrs. Charu Tuli, Advocate appearing for the State of Punjab that it has been finally decided in the previous revision petition by this Court that under the aforesaid Rule the judgment-debtor is entitled to deduct the amount earned by the decree-holder during the dismissal period. It has further been argued by the counsel for the State that the executing Court has committed an error in closing the evidence of the judgment-debtor and if the evidence had not been closed, it would have been proved that the decree holder has earned much more amount and that the judgment-debtor was entitled to deduct more amount than the one which has been held to be deductible.

(3.) After hearing the counsel for the State and Mr. Ram Sarup Bhalla who has argued in person, this Court is of the view that the executing Court has erred in closing the evidence on 2.5.1988. The order dated 2.5.1988 was read out before me by Mr. Bhalla, decree-holder. It has been observed in the order that a request was made on behalf of the Government Pleader that the Secretary of Dera Baba Apoap Guru Nanak High School, Chintanwala, District Patiala, could not attend the Court as he was suffering from an eye trouble and was operated upon. Not only that, it has further been observed in the order that summons issued and received back also evidenced about the eye operation of the aforesaid witness. However, in the view of the Court it was not stated as to when the operation was performed and when the witness could come to attend the Court. This, in my considered view, is no ground to refuse adjournment. The date of the operation and the date of recovery was wholly irrelevant as regards grant of adjournment on a specific date. Once the witness cannot attend the Court on the ground of his ailment, the Court could not have refused adjournment on such like ground that the date of operation and the date of recovery was not stated. The likely date of recovery even if stated could have been proved to be wrong because it has been often seen that a particular person may recover fast whereas the other may recover slow. Even otherwise, I am of the view that the judgment-debtor should have been allowed to complete opportunity of leading evidence. As regards the applicability of Rule 7(3)(a)(5) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, the executing Court after appreciating the observations made by R.N. Mittal, J. in the previous order would again determine afresh as to whether the said rule is applicable or not. An issue can be framed by the executing Court on this point.