High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/7446/2017dismissed

M/S Omway Buildestate Private Ltd & ORS v. Satyendra Jain And ANR

2019-02-01Mr. Justice Amit Rawal2 pages

C.R. No.7446 of 2017 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7446 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision.01.02.2019 M/s Omway Buildestate Private Ltd. and another

...Petitioners

Vs Satyendra Jain and another

...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Meenakshi Dogra, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) This Court vide order dated 28.05.2018 while restoring the stay, which was vacated, passed the following order:- On request of learned proxy counsel for the petitioners, adjourned to 20.01.2019.

Order dated 28.11.2017 staying execution proceedings is recalled.

At this stage, Mr. Amit Jain, learned arguing counsel for the petitioners appears and prays that order vacating the stay may be recalled.

Heard.

Execution proceedings shall remain stayed, subject to deposit of entire decretal amount by the petitioners before the Executing Court at Gurugram within four months along with upto date interest, if any, which would be converted by the Executing Court in the PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.02.05 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.7446 of 2017 (O&M) -2shape of STDR in some nationalised bank fetching maximum rate of interest to save loss of interest to the party, who shall finally be held entitled for the same. The Executing Court shall keep the STDR receipt with it till further orders.

In the meantime, Executing Court at Alwar shall not proceed with the execution for the time being. In case of failure to deposit the decretal amount before the Executing Court, Gurugram, as directed above, this petition shall be dismissed for want of prosecution."

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the aforementioned order has not been complied with. Mr. Amit Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that he has no instructions from his client, despite making sincere efforts.

In view of such situation, no ground for interference is made, as the order dated 28.05.2018 remains uncomplied. The revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE February 01, 2019 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.02.05 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document