CR-9460-2025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-9460-2025 Date of decision: 23.01.2026 Naresh Kumar ...Pe!!oner Versus Murari Lal Sharma ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate (Through VC) for the pe!!oner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The pe!!oner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Addi!onal District Judge, Jhajjar in Civil Appeal bearing CIS No. CA-141/2025 !tled “Murari Lal Sharma vs. Naresh Kumar”, whereby the opera!on of the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2025 passed by the learned trial Court has been stayed during the pendency of the appeal. 2. Since the controversy revolves around the reasoning adopted by the Appellate Court, it would be apposite to no!ce the substance of the impugned order. The Appellate Court, upon hearing the par!es, recorded that though a decree for mandatory injunc!on had been passed in favour of the plain!ff, the same was condi!onal upon affixa!on of ad-valorem court fees. The Appellate Court further no!ced that instead of complying with the said condi!on and availing the statutory remedy of execu!on under the Code of Civil Procedure, the decree-holder had approached the police authori!es seeking removal of the alleged construc!on/ encroachment by relying upon the judgment of the trial Court. 3. The Appellate Court, on perusal of the applica!on addressed to YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.28 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR-9460-2025




the Sta!on House Officer, found that the plain!ff had indeed sought removal of construc!on, which clearly went beyond a mere request for protec!on of life. Such conduct was held to be an a@empt to secure the fruits of the decree without following the due process of law. On these considera!ons, the Appellate Court deemed it appropriate to stay the opera!on of the judgment and decree !ll disposal of the appeal. 4. This Court does not find any illegality or jurisdic!onal error in the aforesaid approach. It is a se@led principle that a decree for mandatory injunc!on, par!cularly when made subject to compliance with a specific condi!on, does not become executable unless such condi!on is fulfilled. 5. Further, even an executable decree can be enforced only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure. Extra-judicial enforcement of a civil decree through police machinery, without recourse to execu!on proceedings, is impermissible in law. 6. The conduct of the pe!!oner, in approaching the police authori!es for implementa!on of the decree without first complying with the direc!on regarding affixa!on of court fees and without ini!a!ng execu!on proceedings, was rightly viewed by the Appellate Court as an a@empt to overreach the judicial process. In such circumstances, the Appellate Court was well within its jurisdic!on to grant stay of the opera!on of the judgment and decree so as to preserve the sanc!ty of appellate proceedings and prevent abuse of process. 7. Interference with an interlocutory order gran!ng stay passed by the Appellate Court is warranted only when such order is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or passed in excess of jurisdic!on. No such infirmity has been demonstrated in the present case. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.28 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR-9460-2025




8. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present pe!!on. Dismissed. 23.01.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.28 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document