- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dated December 3, 1987, whereby the objections filed to the execution of the decree by the judgment-debtor, i.e., the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, were dismissed.
(2.) The decree-holder filed the suit to the effect that he was senior to Vijay Kumar Madan, judgment-debtor No. 1. Vijay Kumar Madan was promoted by the Market Committee, Jalalabad erroneously and his case was sent to judgment-debtor No. 2, i.e. the Marketing Board, for approval which was rejected, as there was no vacant post of Head Clerk in the Market Committee, Jalalabad. The said suit was ultimately decreed. The Marketing Board did not file any appeal against the said decree of the trial Court. However, an appeal was filed by Vijay Kumar Madan, judgment-debtor which was dismissed. When the decree-holder sought execution of the decree, objections were filed on behalf of the Marketing Board that the decree-holder has been adjusted against the vacant post of Head Clerk to which Vijay Kumar Madan, judgment-debtor was adjusted and the benefit of this post from October 4, 1983 to June 23, 1986, had been resolved to be given to the decree-holder as the sanction under Section 20(2) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce and Markets Act, 1961, had been received by the Marketing Committee, Jalalabad, from the Punjab Agricultural Marketing Board. However, according to the Marketing Board, the appointment is always subject to the approval under Section 20(2) of the said Act. In the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner to the said objections it was stated that the judgment-debtors were intentionally and deliberately flouting the decree of the Court. The executing Court came to conclusion that a perusal of the copy of the decree sheet clearly shows that no condition was imposed by the Court which condition has been now imposed by the Punjab Agricultural Marketing Board. The judgment-debtors are bound by the decree. The decree-holder has joined his duty as Head Clerk under protest as per his writing, the copy of which is on the file and is dated October 14, 1987.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decree was not in accordance with the statute; and, therefore, the condition has been rightly imposed by the petitioner.;