Judgment Debtor has filed the present revision petition.

          Decree Holders/respondents had invested their amount in cumulative Fixed Deposits.  After maturity, the Decree Holders did not get their deposited amount and, therefore, filed a complaint no. 247/2005.  The complaint was allowed by the District Forum vide its order dtd. 30.5.2006.  Judgment Debtor inspite of service had not appear before the District Forum.  Judgment Debtor, thereafter, filed

-2-

an appeal No.2670/2006 before the State Commission which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 28.8.2007. The award made by the District Forum, thus, achieved ‘Finality’.

          Decree Holders, thereafter, filed an Execution Application No.38/2006.  Judgment Debtor placed on record the Stay Order granted by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.   The District Forum stayed the execution sine-die.  The Decree Holders, thereafter, filed an application before the District Forum for setting aside the Stay Order but the same was rejected by the District Forum.        

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum in the Execution Application, Decree Holders filed an appeal.  Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Decree Holders informed the Court that the High Court of Himachal Pradesh had disposed of the Company Petition long time before the Stay was granted.  Judgment Debtor/petitioner herein did not bring anything on record to show that the Stay granted by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh was still in force and the State Commission, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

Judgment Debtor has filed the present revision petition.

-3-

          With this revision petition, Judgment Debtor has placed an order dated 22.5.2009, which is post decision of the State Commission, to show that the Company Petition which had been filed and in which Stay was granted by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, was still pending.  This document had not been produced before the State Commission.  The same is being filed, for the first time, before us.  It would be seen that the Judgment Debtor has not been diligently contesting the case as it was proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum in the complaint and their appeal against that order was dismissed for non-prosecution.  Even in the appeal before the State Commission, counsel for the Judgment Debtor/petitioner herein had not appeared.

          We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.  However, we reserve liberty with the Judgment Debtor/petitioner to move application before the State Commission to bring to its notice that the matter in High Court of Himachal Pradesh was still pending and the Stay was still operating.  On filing of such application, it would be open to the State Commission to decide the matter afresh without being influenced by any of the observations made by us in this order.

          Revision petition is disposed of in above terms.

          Dasti.