112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jai Bhushan Malik State of Punjab a CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has been filed, seeking Court to decide Execution Application no.4 v. Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board time bound manner. 2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is a contractor under the MSME Providing and layering of lateral sewer & main/outfall sewer including construction of manholes, making house connections and construction of roads, and all other works c agreement No.51 disputes arose between the parties, leading to arbitral proceedings which were concluded by passing of award dated has filed aforementioned execution application for enforcement of the award, against which there is no stay by any court of law. Despite the matter being pending with the Executing Court for more than six months, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1892-2025 Date of Decision :20.05.2025 Jai Bhushan Malik Versus and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL) The petition has been filed, seeking to decide Execution Application no.430 of 2024 titled Water Supply and Sewerage Board; time bound manner. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is a contractor under the MSMED Act, 2006, and has been allotted a contract for Providing and layering of lateral sewer & main/outfall sewer including construction of manholes, making house connections and construction of roads, and all other works contingent thereto at Barnala Town 51 of 2015-16. Timely payments were not made to him and disputes arose between the parties, leading to arbitral proceedings which were concluded by passing of award dated 20.07.2024, A has filed aforementioned execution application for enforcement of the award, against which there is no stay by any court of law. Despite the matter being pending with the Executing Court for more than six months, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Date of Decision :20.05.2025 …Petitioner ….Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA , Advocate for the petitioner. The petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the Executing of 2024 titled Jai Bhushan Malik ; instituted on 13.09.2024, in a Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is a registered Act, 2006, and has been allotted a contract for Providing and layering of lateral sewer & main/outfall sewer including construction of manholes, making house connections and construction of roads, Barnala Town, District Barnala, vide Timely payments were not made to him and disputes arose between the parties, leading to arbitral proceedings which were .07.2024, Annexure P-1. The petitioner has filed aforementioned execution application for enforcement of the award, against which there is no stay by any court of law. Despite the matter being pending with the Executing Court for more than six months, it has not been to the Executing Jai Bhushan Malik instituted on 13.09.2024, in a registered Act, 2006, and has been allotted a contract for Providing and layering of lateral sewer & main/outfall sewer including construction of manholes, making house connections and construction of roads, , vide Timely payments were not made to him and disputes arose between the parties, leading to arbitral proceedings which were 1. The petitioner has filed aforementioned execution application for enforcement of the award, against which there is no stay by any court of law. Despite the matter being PUSHPINDER SAINI 2025.05.28 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1892-2025 finally decided. He has relied upon directions issued by the Supreme Court in Periyammal (Dead) and others requiring the District Judiciary to dispose of the pending execution petitions within a period of six months, without fail. dated 03.04.2025, ha the District and Sessions Judges to petitions within six months starting from 01.04.2025. issued vide these instructions 3. Keeping in view the notice on the respondent has been done away with, as caused to them. 4. In the light of Periyammal case with a direction to the Executing Court to decide the pending execution application bearing no.4 months of receiving a certified copy of the order. May 20, 2025 ps -2- finally decided. He has relied upon directions issued by the Supreme Court in Periyammal (Dead) and others v. Rajamani and another requiring the District Judiciary to dispose of the pending execution petitions within a period of six months, without fail. Based upon which instructions dated 03.04.2025, have been issued by the Registrar General of this Court to all District and Sessions Judges to positively dispose of the pending execution within six months starting from 01.04.2025. vide these instructions not to give unnecessary or long adjournments. Keeping in view the nature of directions being issued notice on the respondent has been done away with, as In the light of facts aforementioned and the directions issued in case (supra), it is deemed appropriate to with a direction to the Executing Court to decide the pending execution application bearing no.430 of 2024 expeditiously, preferably within receiving a certified copy of the order. May 20, 2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable finally decided. He has relied upon directions issued by the Supreme Court in Rajamani and another, 2025 INSC 329, requiring the District Judiciary to dispose of the pending execution petitions Based upon which instructions, been issued by the Registrar General of this Court to all dispose of the pending execution within six months starting from 01.04.2025. Directions have also been not to give unnecessary or long adjournments. directions being issued, service of notice on the respondent has been done away with, as no prejudice will be facts aforementioned and the directions issued in is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition with a direction to the Executing Court to decide the pending execution of 2024 expeditiously, preferably within four receiving a certified copy of the order. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No finally decided. He has relied upon directions issued by the Supreme Court in 2025 INSC 329, requiring the District Judiciary to dispose of the pending execution petitions , been issued by the Registrar General of this Court to all dispose of the pending execution irections have also been service of no prejudice will be facts aforementioned and the directions issued in dispose of the petition with a direction to the Executing Court to decide the pending execution four TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) PUSHPINDER SAINI 2025.05.28 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document