Gokal Chand Mital, J.:— This order will dispose of Civil Revisions No. 591 and 2029 of 1979, as they arise out of the same proceedings and are between the same parties.
2. Civil Revision No. 591 of 1979 was heard by me on 7th of August, 1979, when it was pointed out that the question, whether order of the Executive Court is appealable or not, was referred in Civil Revision No. 34 of 1978 to a full Bench. The aforesaid referred revision was heard by a Division Bench of this Court and by order dated 10th of August, 1979, it was held that the orders of the Executing Court dismissing the execution application or rejecting the objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not appealable and are only revisable. After the decision of the Division Bench, the revision has again been placed for hearing before me.
3. The respondent, Krishan Mohan Sarvia obtained a decree from the civil Court on 16th of September, 1974 for permanent injunction against the State of Punjab restraining it not to abuse the power for not allowing the plaintiff to resume his duties with a direction that the plaintiff should be treated on duties from the date he withdrew his resignation. In accordance with the aforesaid decree, the decree-holder was allowed to resume duty but he was not paid the remuneration from the date of his resignation till resumption of duties and in order to obtain arrears for that period, he filed an application for execution on 15th of September, 1975, which came up for consideration before Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Patiala, who, by order dated 24th of April, 1978, dismissed the same holding that no decree for payment of arrears was granted. Against the order of the Executing Court, the decree-holder filed an appeal before the District Judge, which came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge Patiala, who allowed the same in view of the Supreme Court decision in Civil Misc. Petition No. 10572 of 1978 in Civil Appeals Nos. 1299 and 1298 of 1969, Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal v. State of Punjab, decided on 16th of October, 1978, and by order dated 29th of December, 1978, directed the Executing Court to execute the decree in the light of the observations made in that judgment, that is, in compliance with the Supreme Court judgment. The State of Punjab, feeling dis-satisfied with the appellate order has come to this Court in Civil Revision No. 591 of ??? whereas the decree-holder has filed Civil Revision No. 2029 of 1979 against the order of the Executing Court, in view of the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the State that no appeal was competent against the order of the Executing Court.
4. Shri Achhra Singh, appearing for the State of Punjab, has argued that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No. 34 of 1978 Ram Niwas v. ??? Lal etc., dated 10th of August, 1979, no appeal was competent before the first appellate Court and as such the judgment dated 29th of December, 1978, deserves to be set aside on this short ground.
5. There is merit in the argument raised by the counsel for the State and it is true that the order of the first appellate court dated 29th of December, 1978, deserves to be set aside as being wholly without jurisdiction as no appeal was competent against the order of the executing Court passed on the execution application filed under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure after the coming into force of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, but that does not finally settle the dispute. It will be worthwhile to notice that Mr. M.R Sharrna, J., in Darshan Kumar v. Ragunandan Sharma, 1978 R.L.R 266 and Surjit Singh v. Sardara Singh, 1979 R.L.R ??? had held that the order of the Executing Court is appealable which decisions have been overruled by the Division Bench on 10th of August, 1979 in C.R No. 34 of 1978, as stated above. The very matter whether such an order would be appealable or not, came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Mohammad Khan v. State Bank of Travancore, A.I.R 1978 Kerala 201 and a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Mohan Das v. Kamla Devi, A.I.R 1978 Rajasthan 127. All this clearly shows that the matter was not free from difficulty and deserved consideration by Division Bench and Full Bench. Under the circumstances, while setting aside the order of the appellate Court, I would like to exercise my suo motu powers of revision in order to do justice between the parties to find out whether the decree-holder is entitled to any relief in execution proceedings or not. This is why the decree-holder did not take any chance and filed Civil Revision No. 229 of 1979 in this Court on 4th of September, 1979, against the order of Executing Court dated 24th of April, 1978, along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. On the facts, on which I am prepared to exercise my suo motu powers of revision, I would allow the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act also and condone the delay and entertain Civil Revision No. 2029 of 1979 filed by the decree holder for decision on merits.
6. Shri M.R Agnihotri for the decree-holder has urged that an order reinstating an employee or holding that he continuous to be in service is executable in view of the order of the Supreme Court in Krishan Murari Lal Sahgal v. State of Punjab (supra) The short order of the Supreme Court deserves to be reproduced below:
“Heard Counsel for the parties. This application is disposed of on a short ground. It has become necessary to clarify the order made by this Court allowing the appeals of the petitioner. According to the decision of this Court, the petitioner was given a declaration that he would be deemed to continue in service with effect from the date of the suit. As a logical consequence of this declaration, it is manifest that the Petitioner would be entitled to back-salary right from 1-6-1962 till 9-2-1974. The only way in which the judgment of this Court can be implemented is to pay the aforesaid amount of salary to the petitioner. With these observations, this application is disposed of. The amount of the salary must be paid within two months from today”
7. A reading of the aforesaid order would show that the only way to implement such a decree would be to issue a direction to the State to pay the arrears of salary etc. to the decree-holder and this can amply be done by the executing Court.
8. Shri Achhra singh could not raise any meaningful argument for not following the aforesaid procedure in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court reproduced above. For the reasons recorded above, I allow Civil Revision No. 591 of 1979 and after setting aside the order of the Additional District Judge dated ??? of December, 1978, in exercise of my suo motu power of revision, set aside the order of the Executing Court dated 24th of April, 1978, and direct that the execution application is maintainable and the Executing Court would be entitled to execute the decree against the state of Punjab directing it to pay all arrears of salary etc. to the decree-holder from the date of submission of the resignation by the decree-holder till he was allowed to resume his duties. However, there will be no order as to costs.
9. I also allow Civil Revision No. 2029 of 1979, set aside the order of the executing Court dated 24th of April, 1978, and issue a direction in the same terms as I have issued in Civil Revision No. 591 of 1978, in exercise of my suo motu powers. There will be no order as to costs in this revision either.
10. Revision allowed.