CR-6625-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH Ranjit Kaur Sachin Sharma CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Brijesh Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar, whereby in the execution proceeding framed issues and directed the parties to lead evidence. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once a consent decree had been passed, the manner and could not have ordered the framing of issues or directed recording of evidence, as the same would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. It was urged that objections, if any, could be decided on the basis of material already availa on record and no detailed trial 3. Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and submits that order dated 12.12.2024 in present revision petition be dismissed. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Brijesh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar, whereby in the execution proceedings arising out of a decree dated 09.05.2024, the C framed issues and directed the parties to lead evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once a consent decree had been passed, the Executing Court was bound to enforce the same manner and could not have ordered the framing of issues or directed recording of evidence, as the same would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. It was urged that objections, if any, could be decided on the basis of material already availa on record and no detailed trial-like procedure was warranted in execution. Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and submits that the executing Court has rightly passed the order dated 12.12.2024 in accordance with law present revision petition be dismissed. -1- OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6625-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 25.09.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar, whereby in the a decree dated 09.05.2024, the Court below framed issues and directed the parties to lead evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once a consent decree was bound to enforce the same in a summary manner and could not have ordered the framing of issues or directed recording of evidence, as the same would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. It was urged that objections, if any, could be decided on the basis of material already availa like procedure was warranted in execution. Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the executing Court has rightly passed the impugned accordance with law. Therefore, he prays that - The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar, whereby in the ourt below Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once a consent decree in a summary manner and could not have ordered the framing of issues or directed recording of evidence, as the same would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. It was urged that objections, if any, could be decided on the basis of material already available Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the impugned the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6625-2025 (O&M) 4. I have heard learned counsel through the impugned order as well as the record. 5. It is settled law that under Section 47 CP between the parties relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by the on the nature of objections raised. Where the pleadings of the p variance on factual aspects which cannot be decided merely on the basis of documents, the executing court is well within its jurisdiction to frame issues and permit the parties to adduce evidence. There is no statutory bar against framing o issues in execution, and it is equally well established that framing of issues is not a matter of right in every case but depends upon the necessity of resolving disputed facts which arise in the course of execution. 6. In the present case, since the the maintainability of execution and raised factual pleas which required adjudication, the executing court deemed it appropriate to frame issues and call upon the parties to lead evidence. This approach cannot be faul discretion exercised by the court below is supported by the provisions of law, and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the The order dated 12.12.2024 suffers from no infirmity and stands upheld. The civil revision petition is dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 25, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the parties through the impugned order as well as the record. It is settled law that under Section 47 CP between the parties relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by the Executing Court. The procedure to be adopted depends on the nature of objections raised. Where the pleadings of the p variance on factual aspects which cannot be decided merely on the basis of documents, the executing court is well within its jurisdiction to frame issues and permit the parties to adduce evidence. There is no statutory bar against framing o issues in execution, and it is equally well established that framing of issues is not a matter of right in every case but depends upon the necessity of resolving disputed facts which arise in the course of execution. In the present case, since the respondent filed objections contesting the maintainability of execution and raised factual pleas which required adjudication, the executing court deemed it appropriate to frame issues and call upon the parties to lead evidence. This approach cannot be faul discretion exercised by the court below is supported by the provisions of law, and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the The order dated 12.12.2024 suffers from no infirmity and stands upheld. The civil revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking -2- for the parties and carefully gone through the impugned order as well as the record. It is settled law that under Section 47 CPC, all questions arising between the parties relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree . The procedure to be adopted depends on the nature of objections raised. Where the pleadings of the parties disclose variance on factual aspects which cannot be decided merely on the basis of documents, the executing court is well within its jurisdiction to frame issues and permit the parties to adduce evidence. There is no statutory bar against framing o issues in execution, and it is equally well established that framing of issues is not a matter of right in every case but depends upon the necessity of resolving disputed respondent filed objections contesting the maintainability of execution and raised factual pleas which required adjudication, the executing court deemed it appropriate to frame issues and call upon the parties to lead evidence. This approach cannot be faulted with. The discretion exercised by the court below is supported by the provisions of law, and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any illegality or jurisdictional error Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present revision petition. The order dated 12.12.2024 suffers from no infirmity and stands upheld. The civil Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking - and carefully gone C, all questions arising between the parties relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree . The procedure to be adopted depends arties disclose variance on factual aspects which cannot be decided merely on the basis of documents, the executing court is well within its jurisdiction to frame issues and permit the parties to adduce evidence. There is no statutory bar against framing of issues in execution, and it is equally well established that framing of issues is not a matter of right in every case but depends upon the necessity of resolving disputed respondent filed objections contesting the maintainability of execution and raised factual pleas which required adjudication, the executing court deemed it appropriate to frame issues and call ted with. The discretion exercised by the court below is supported by the provisions of law, and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any illegality or jurisdictional error present revision petition. The order dated 12.12.2024 suffers from no infirmity and stands upheld. The civil TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6625-2025 (O&M) Whether reportable (O&M) Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- : Yes/No - TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document