SATINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 22.11.2012 passed in execution of the award passed by the reference Court as enhanced in the Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for respondent No.2 and the State counsel, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained at all. It has been observed by the Executing Court that the execution stands already satisfied in terms of the order 17.01.2006. This is quite a strange observation of the Execution Court as the order dated 17.01.2006 passed by the Executing Court was set aside by this Court on 18.05.2009 which was not assailed further. While setting aside the order dated 17.01.2006, this court dealt with the controversy between the parties elaborately and it was ultimately held as under:-

(3.) The Executing Court has rather not made any attempt to implement the aforesaid decision categorically directed by this Court in the order Annexure P-7. The Executing Court has observed as under in the impugned order: