MOHD TELI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMING to have been appointed as "Watch and Ward Personnel" in respondent -Sericulture Department under order No.4763 -64/M.S/90 of 01.02.1990 and suffering stoppage of salary, the petitioner -decree holders herein instituted a suit on 31st July 1990 tried and decreed by Munsiff, Anantnag, on 31.11.1992, ex -parte against respondents, declaring petitioners as validly appointed 'watch and ward personnel of respondent -department, annulling whatever orders of termination might have been passed against them and directing their continuance service right since 1st of Feb. 1990 the claimed date of their appointment and declaring them entitled to pay allowance accordingly, along with prohibiting the department from interfering into discharge of their functions and concluded the decree with a direction for compliance thereof within one month from the date of passing it. Naturally thereafter petitioner -decree holders sought execution of decree against respondent -department on 20.10.1994 which was objected to by the local public prosecutor on the ground that decree passed in the matter was a nullity as the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the basic suit because petitioner -decree holders had sought redressal of their reported grievance before the Labour Court also and secured an award there from. One of the objection taken was that since execution petition previously instituted had already been dismissed on 16th Nov. 1993, the later one could not be maintained. The execution was contested on certain factual premises also, main one being that the stations against which petitioner -decree holders were claiming wages for work were not functional at all because of being in occupation of Security forces. The judgment debtor -department however appears to have conceded the status of petitioner -decree holders as casual labourers, having worked with them for some time for which they had already been paid in accordance with law.

(2.) VIDE interim order dt. 8th Nov. 1996 Munsiff Anantnag before whom the proceedings were pending appears to have expressed inability to continue with the proceedings on personal grounds whereupon the same was transferred to local Sub Judge who commenced proceedings there upon on 18.12.1997. The first speaking order on the file appears to have been passed on 19.06.1997 where under learned Sub Judge while recording the statement of counsel for judgment debtors that the department would execute the decree within a couple of days asked decree holders to furnish an account of, what they had already received from respondent -department. Vide order dated 08.03.97 ld. Sub Judge asked judgment debtors to show cause against attachment of their account and their committal to civil prison for compelling execution of the decree and posted the matter for 29.03.97. On first of April, 1997 however the learned Judge while observing that judgment debtor respondents were delaying execution of the decree ordered attachment of the account head of Commissioner Secretary Industries and that of the concerned departmental office and putting a complete freeze on the account posted the matter for 12.05.97. This order appears to have been challenged through a revision petition, in this court, reportedly dismissed on 26.05.97 with dismissal notified to executing court on 28.05.1997 who posted the matter for 19.06.97 when again the counsel for judgment debtors sought time for complying the decree and had the matter posted for 15.07.97. Meanwhile, the judgment debtors appear to have filed a time barred appeal also against basic decree before District Judge Anantnag who did not find favour with the same and dismissed it as time barred. That done, the matter again landed in the executing court of Sub Judge Anantnag where proceedings recommenced on 30.09.97. On 27.03.98 the learned Executing Court while considering objections of judgment -debtors to execution of decree provided four weeks time for compliance and posted the matter on 27.04.98. On 9.6.98 again the account head of Commissioner Secretary Industries was directed to be attached to the limit of decretal amount which by then had swelled into Rs.2,57,272/ - and posted the matter on 20.06.98. On 6.7.98 learned Executing Judge while observing that arrears under the decree till that date had been paid to the decree holders ordered release of the seized account subject to furnishing affidavit for performance of decree in future. Proceedings as such appear to have continued till 19.12.06, when learned Executing Judge while narrating the history of cases and considering its different features including the report of Commissioner whom he had appointed in the matter opined that since the basic decree was only declaratory in nature no direction could be passed for its execution and accordingly dropped the matter. It is this order that is impugned in this revision petition, details whereof would follow.

(3.) GROUNDS pleaded to assail this order are that having already been partially executed the decree could not be held to be unexecutable, particularly while all objections taken by respondent judgment debtors had already been rejected at different points of time, as a result whereof the impugned order was bad as resulting in defeating a valid decree on trivial considerations. During course of submissions while petitioners counsel has reiterated and further elucidated the grounds projected in memo of petition the respondents counsel who in view of proceedings cataloged hereinabove stood on a somewhat slippery ground tried to defend the impugned order on certain pre -decretal circumstances suggesting that in peculiar circumstances reportedly prevailing at that time, particularly that official machinery was dis -functional due to public disorder and respondent judgment debtors could not defend themselves or project their case properly at any point of time till the decree was partially executed through coercive process.