CR-6355-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA YFC Projects Private Limited M/s Reach International CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Prateek Kumar Jha Mr. Manan Gera, Advocate MANDEEP PANNU 1. Present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/judgment dated 31.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior acting as Executing C attachment were issued against the property of the petitioner without deciding the applications and objections filed by the JD. 2. Brief facts reveal that the respondent/decree referred to as “D summary suit whereby the JD was directed to pay a sum of with interest @ 10% per annum. For execution of the said decree, the DH filed an execution petition on 27.09.2024 be Gurugram, seeking attachment and sale of the JD’s movable and immovable properties. 3. Vide order dated 08.10.2024, notice of the execution petition was issued to the JD for 19.02.2025. However, on the said date, i. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : YFC Projects Private Limited VERSUS M/s Reach International CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Prateek Kumar Jha, Advocate and Mr. Manan Gera, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. Present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/judgment-debtor (hereinafter referred to as “JD”) challenging the order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior acting as Executing Court, as well as the subsequent orders whereby warrants of attachment were issued against the property of the petitioner without deciding the applications and objections filed by the JD. Brief facts reveal that the respondent/decree referred to as “DH”) had obtained a money decree from the Commercial Court in a summary suit whereby the JD was directed to pay a sum of with interest @ 10% per annum. For execution of the said decree, the DH filed an execution petition on 27.09.2024 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, seeking attachment and sale of the JD’s movable and immovable Vide order dated 08.10.2024, notice of the execution petition was issued to the JD for 19.02.2025. However, on the said date, i. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6355-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 11.09.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU and for the petitioner. Present civil revision petition has been filed by the debtor (hereinafter referred to as “JD”) challenging the order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, he subsequent orders whereby warrants of attachment were issued against the property of the petitioner without deciding the Brief facts reveal that the respondent/decree-holder (hereinafter had obtained a money decree from the Commercial Court in a summary suit whereby the JD was directed to pay a sum of ₹25,57,542/-- along with interest @ 10% per annum. For execution of the said decree, the DH filed an fore the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, seeking attachment and sale of the JD’s movable and immovable Vide order dated 08.10.2024, notice of the execution petition was issued to the JD for 19.02.2025. However, on the said date, i.e., 19.02.2025, the JD - Present civil revision petition has been filed by the debtor (hereinafter referred to as “JD”) challenging the order Division), Gurugram, he subsequent orders whereby warrants of attachment were issued against the property of the petitioner without deciding the (hereinafter had obtained a money decree from the Commercial Court in a along with interest @ 10% per annum. For execution of the said decree, the DH filed an fore the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, seeking attachment and sale of the JD’s movable and immovable Vide order dated 08.10.2024, notice of the execution petition was e., 19.02.2025, the JD TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6355-2025 (O&M) was proceeded against ex parte and the matter was adjourned to 16.05.2025 for filing of list of properties of the JD. 4. On 31.05.2025, without holding any enquiry as to the encumbrances on the property, the JD’s property for 11.07.2025. 5. On 16.07.2025, since the earlier warrants could not be issued for want of munadi fee, fresh warrants of attachment were directed to be issued for 21.07.2025. 6. On 21.07.2025, the JD mov (Ex. P6) praying for setting aside the ex parte order dated 19.02.2025, for permission to file objections, and for stay of execution proceedings. However, in the zimni order dated 21.07.2025 (Ex. P7), the presence of his status continued to be shown as ex parte. Further, it was incorrectly recorded that an application under Section 151 CPC had been filed by the decree although in fact the application was moved by the JD. Instead of decidi application, the executing court merely made a reference to the District Judge on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction. 7. On 31.07.2025, after receipt of the file back from the District Judge, fresh warrants of attachment were again ordered wit JD’s application dated 21.07.2025. 8. On 04.08.2025, the JD moved another application (Ex. P9) for correction of the order dated 21.07.2025 and for stay of conditional warrants. This application also remained undecided and wa orders. (O&M) was proceeded against ex parte and the matter was adjourned to 16.05.2025 for filing of list of properties of the JD. On 31.05.2025, without holding any enquiry as to the encumbrances on the property, the Executing Court issued warrants of attachment against the JD’s property for 11.07.2025. On 16.07.2025, since the earlier warrants could not be issued for want of munadi fee, fresh warrants of attachment were directed to be issued for On 21.07.2025, the JD moved an application under Section 151 CPC (Ex. P6) praying for setting aside the ex parte order dated 19.02.2025, for permission to file objections, and for stay of execution proceedings. However, in the zimni order dated 21.07.2025 (Ex. P7), the presence of his status continued to be shown as ex parte. Further, it was incorrectly recorded that an application under Section 151 CPC had been filed by the decree although in fact the application was moved by the JD. Instead of decidi application, the executing court merely made a reference to the District Judge on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction. On 31.07.2025, after receipt of the file back from the District Judge, fresh warrants of attachment were again ordered wit JD’s application dated 21.07.2025. On 04.08.2025, the JD moved another application (Ex. P9) for correction of the order dated 21.07.2025 and for stay of conditional warrants. This application also remained undecided and was not even reflected in the zimni -2- was proceeded against ex parte and the matter was adjourned to 16.05.2025 for On 31.05.2025, without holding any enquiry as to the encumbrances warrants of attachment against the On 16.07.2025, since the earlier warrants could not be issued for want of munadi fee, fresh warrants of attachment were directed to be issued for ed an application under Section 151 CPC (Ex. P6) praying for setting aside the ex parte order dated 19.02.2025, for permission to file objections, and for stay of execution proceedings. However, in the zimni order dated 21.07.2025 (Ex. P7), the presence of JD was not marked and his status continued to be shown as ex parte. Further, it was incorrectly recorded that an application under Section 151 CPC had been filed by the decree-holder, although in fact the application was moved by the JD. Instead of deciding this application, the executing court merely made a reference to the District Judge on On 31.07.2025, after receipt of the file back from the District Judge, fresh warrants of attachment were again ordered without passing any order on the On 04.08.2025, the JD moved another application (Ex. P9) for correction of the order dated 21.07.2025 and for stay of conditional warrants. This s not even reflected in the zimni - was proceeded against ex parte and the matter was adjourned to 16.05.2025 for On 31.05.2025, without holding any enquiry as to the encumbrances warrants of attachment against the On 16.07.2025, since the earlier warrants could not be issued for want of munadi fee, fresh warrants of attachment were directed to be issued for ed an application under Section 151 CPC (Ex. P6) praying for setting aside the ex parte order dated 19.02.2025, for permission to file objections, and for stay of execution proceedings. However, in JD was not marked and his status continued to be shown as ex parte. Further, it was incorrectly recorded holder, ng this application, the executing court merely made a reference to the District Judge on On 31.07.2025, after receipt of the file back from the District Judge, hout passing any order on the On 04.08.2025, the JD moved another application (Ex. P9) for correction of the order dated 21.07.2025 and for stay of conditional warrants. This s not even reflected in the zimni TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6355-2025 (O&M) 9. On 26.08.2025, 28.08.2025 and 03.09.2025, the continued to issue fresh warrants of attachment against the JD. A perusal of the zimni order dated 28.08.2025 further shows an inconsistency while t Shri Sandeep Aneja, Advocate, on behalf of JD along with Vakalatnama has been duly marked, yet at the same time the status of the JD was shown as ex parte. 10. From the above chronology, it is evident that dated 21.07.2025 under Section 151 CPC and subsequent application dated 04.08.2025 remained undecided. attachment of JD’s property without first adjudicating upon these pending applications. The zimni orders contain contrad present through counsel, while at the same time his status is still reflected as ex parte. The error of recording that an application under Section 151 CPC was filed by the decree-holder, though it was filed by the JD, s mind. 11. The execution of a decree has to proceed strictly in accordance with law. Once the JD appeared and filed applications for setting aside ex parte proceedings and for raising objections, it was obligatory on the part executing court to decide those applications first before taking any further coercive action like issuance of warrants of attachment. The failure to do so amounts to material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, without ex pending applications of the JD, this Court deem Executing Court to first decide the applications dated 21.07.2025 and 04.08.2025 filed by the JD on their own merits and in accordance w to proceed further with the E (O&M) On 26.08.2025, 28.08.2025 and 03.09.2025, the continued to issue fresh warrants of attachment against the JD. A perusal of the zimni order dated 28.08.2025 further shows an inconsistency while t Shri Sandeep Aneja, Advocate, on behalf of JD along with Vakalatnama has been duly marked, yet at the same time the status of the JD was shown as ex parte. From the above chronology, it is evident that 025 under Section 151 CPC and subsequent application dated 04.08.2025 remained undecided. The Executing attachment of JD’s property without first adjudicating upon these pending The zimni orders contain contrad present through counsel, while at the same time his status is still reflected as ex The error of recording that an application under Section 151 CPC was filed holder, though it was filed by the JD, s The execution of a decree has to proceed strictly in accordance with law. Once the JD appeared and filed applications for setting aside ex parte proceedings and for raising objections, it was obligatory on the part executing court to decide those applications first before taking any further coercive action like issuance of warrants of attachment. The failure to do so amounts to material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the pending applications of the JD, this Court deem ourt to first decide the applications dated 21.07.2025 and 04.08.2025 filed by the JD on their own merits and in accordance w to proceed further with the Execution Petition. -3- On 26.08.2025, 28.08.2025 and 03.09.2025, the Executing Court continued to issue fresh warrants of attachment against the JD. A perusal of the zimni order dated 28.08.2025 further shows an inconsistency while the presence of Shri Sandeep Aneja, Advocate, on behalf of JD along with Vakalatnama has been duly marked, yet at the same time the status of the JD was shown as ex parte. From the above chronology, it is evident that the JD’s application 025 under Section 151 CPC and subsequent application dated xecuting Court continued to proceed with attachment of JD’s property without first adjudicating upon these pending The zimni orders contain contradictions at places the JD is marked present through counsel, while at the same time his status is still reflected as ex The error of recording that an application under Section 151 CPC was filed holder, though it was filed by the JD, shows clear non-application of The execution of a decree has to proceed strictly in accordance with law. Once the JD appeared and filed applications for setting aside ex parte proceedings and for raising objections, it was obligatory on the part of the executing court to decide those applications first before taking any further coercive action like issuance of warrants of attachment. The failure to do so amounts to material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. pressing any opinion on the merits of the pending applications of the JD, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the ourt to first decide the applications dated 21.07.2025 and 04.08.2025 filed by the JD on their own merits and in accordance with law, and only thereaft - ourt continued to issue fresh warrants of attachment against the JD. A perusal of the he presence of Shri Sandeep Aneja, Advocate, on behalf of JD along with Vakalatnama has been he JD’s application 025 under Section 151 CPC and subsequent application dated ourt continued to proceed with attachment of JD’s property without first adjudicating upon these pending ictions at places the JD is marked present through counsel, while at the same time his status is still reflected as ex The error of recording that an application under Section 151 CPC was filed application of The execution of a decree has to proceed strictly in accordance with law. Once the JD appeared and filed applications for setting aside ex parte of the executing court to decide those applications first before taking any further coercive action like issuance of warrants of attachment. The failure to do so amounts to pressing any opinion on the merits of the s it appropriate to direct the ourt to first decide the applications dated 21.07.2025 and 04.08.2025 ith law, and only thereafter TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6355-2025 (O&M) 13. The civil revision petition is disposed of with the above directions. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 11, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) The civil revision petition is disposed of with the above directions. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- The civil revision petition is disposed of with the above directions. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE - TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document