Pritam Pal, J. - (1.) This Civil Revision, by the petitioners has been filed against impugned order dated December 11, 2006, passed in execution of money decree dated December 22, 2004, whereby their objections filed before the Executing Court, were dismissed.
(2.) The only noticeable point of arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners, who were judgment debtors in the main suit for recovery, were not allowed to file the written statement and not only that the witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff (decree holder), were also not allowed to be cross examined. It was then also argued that at present, the appeal against the judgment and decree dated December 22, 2004, is still pending before the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur. So, the execution of the money decree is liable to be stayed. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon following catena of judgments:- S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) By LRs and others, (1994)1 SCC 1 , Mehar Singh and Ors v. Firm Pakher Singh & Ors., 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 686 (P&H) and Santokh Singh v. Amar Kaur and others, 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 67.
(3.) A perusal of the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court , goes a long way to show that in fact, the petitioners had failed to file written statement well in time and as such, their defence was struck off as per the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. It is further apparent that thereafter, an opportunity was also granted to the petitioners' counsel to cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiff/respondent (decree holder), but inspite of that, no cross-examination was conducted upon the witnesses of the plaintiff/respondent. I have also gone through the above rulings cited by learned counsel for the petitioners and find that the facts contained therein are quite at variance from the facts of the case in hand and hence, no benefit can be derived by the learned counsel for the petitioners from the observations made therein by their Lordships.;