CR-2000-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (234) CR-2000-2018 Date of decision: - 05.08.2025 Mahabir ....Petitioner Versus Beer Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondents. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhajjar, in execution application No.22 of 2017, whereby the property of the petitioner has been attached and affixed for being auctioned. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents have jointly submitted that since the petitioner had already deposited the decretal amount, thus, the prayer for setting aside the auction has been rendered infructuous. It is further jointly submitted that the present petitioner had filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2016 and have prayed that the present revision petition be NARESH KUMAR 2025.08.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CR-2000-2018 -2- disposed of by permitting the respondents to withdraw the said decretal amount, which had been deposited by the petitioner before the executing Court, subject to surety and the same be also made subject to the decision in the said appeal. 3. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances and on the basis of the consensus, the present revision petition is disposed of with the following directions/observations: - (i) The decretal amount deposited by the petitioner before the executing Court would be released to the respondents (decree holders) in accordance with the decree, subject to their furnishing surety to the satisfaction of the executing Court. (ii) In case the appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed, then, the respondents would be liable to return the said amount to the petitioner. Needless to say, in case, the appeal is dismissed, then, the respondents would not need to return the said amount. (iii) This Court has not opined on the merits of the said appeal and the same would be considered independently, after hearing both the parties, in accordance with law. ( VIKAS BAHL ) August 05, 2025 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2025.08.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement