STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BHARAT TIMBER STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment of Rajendra Nath mittal, J. , vide which the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Bharat Timber Store, jhajjar Road, Rohtak, respondent No. 1 had filed a suit against Raghubir Singh, respondent No. 2 and the Senior Sub-Judge, Rohtak decreed that suit for the yeum of Rs. 2,602,75 Ps. on 19-8-1963. During the pendency of the suit, the Senior Sub-Judge had sent an intimation to the Sub-Divisional Officer, P. W. D. , B. and R. Bhiwani, that the amount lying with him and payable to Raghubir Singh contractor, shall not be paid to him, till further orders of the Court. On the request of the decree-holder, the papers for the recovery of the decretal amount were sent to the Addl. District Judge, hissar, who entrusted the same to the Senior Sub-Judge, Hissar for necessary proceedings. The Senior Sub-Judge, Hissar, dismissed the execution application in default on 3rd of Oct. , 1964, but restored the same on the same day.

(3.) THE Sub-Divisional Officer, P. W. D. B, and R. , Bhiwani paid Rs. 3,574. 27 Ps. to raghubir Singh on different dates between 19-5-1965 to 23-5-1965, in spite of the order restraining him to make any payment to him (Raghubir Singh ). Notice was issued to the Public Works Department, B. and R. , Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Department) for the payment of the amount attached. The department took up the plea that the execution application had been dismissed in default on Oct. 3, 19,64 and, therefore, the attachment, if any had ceased to exist and it wag not liable to pay any amount. The Executing Court, holding that the attachment had revived on the restoration of the Execution Application, ordered the Department to make the payment. The State of Haryana filed an appeal, which was heard 'by the learned Additional District Judge and it was held that in view of the undertaking given by the Department, its liability would continue in spite of the fact that the execution application was dismissed in default and consequently the apspeal was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Hissar, the State filed an appeal in this Court and that also failed.