CR-5405-2025 (O&M) 116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. CR-5405 Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association (Regd.) Karan Bhatia and Others 2. CR-5407 Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association (Regd.) Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association and Others CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. MANDEEP PANNU 1. This order shall dispose of above petitions, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying direction to the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsa of 2023 titled as “ Association” and CA No. 101 of 2023 Association (Regd.) through Rev. Deepak Kumar Secretary of Attorney Holder vs. Sadrick Sohan Lal and Samantharoy bound manner. These appeals (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Decided on : 5405-2025 (O&M) Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association (Regd.) VERSUS Karan Bhatia and Others 5407-2025 (O&M) Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association (Regd.) VERSUS Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. This order shall dispose of above filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying direction to the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsa of 2023 titled as “Karan Bhatia and others vs. Amritsar Diocese and Trust and CA No. 101 of 2023 titled as “ (Regd.) through Rev. Deepak Kumar Secretary of Attorney Holder vs. Amritsar Diocese and Trust Association Sadrick Sohan Lal and Samantharoy and others bound manner. These appeals arise out of the order dated 16.02.2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on :- 13.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents ....Petitioner Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association and Others ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). This order shall dispose of above-numbered both the revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for a direction to the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, to decide CMA No. 47 Karan Bhatia and others vs. Amritsar Diocese and Trust titled as “Amritsar Diocese and Trust (Regd.) through Rev. Deepak Kumar Secretary-cum-General Power Amritsar Diocese and Trust Association (Regd.) through and others” expeditiously and in a time the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the revision for a r, to decide CMA No. 47 Karan Bhatia and others vs. Amritsar Diocese and Trust Amritsar Diocese and Trust General Power (Regd.) through expeditiously and in a time- passed by the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5405-2025 (O&M) learned Executing Court, whereby the objections preferred by the respondents to the execution petition were dismissed. BRIEF FACTS 2. The petitioner had filed a rent petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on seeking ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises. The Rent Contro allowed the petition on 13 3. Thereafter, a learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar. During execution, respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 filed separate objections. objections, the respondents preferred their respective appeals 2023 and CA No District Judge, Amrit pending. 4. It is contended that the execution petition has remained pending since 15.06.2012 without any inte tactics adopted by the respondents. The prolonged pendency has deprived the petitioner of the fruits of the ejectment order for nearly fourteen years. 5. It is further urged that even earlier, atte stall execution had been rejected, yet the matter has not reached finality due to repeated objections and successive appeals. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his assistance. 7. It is evident that the rent petition was instituted in allowed on 13.09. (O&M) learned Executing Court, whereby the objections preferred by the respondents to the execution petition were dismissed. BRIEF FACTS The petitioner had filed a rent petition under Section 13 of the East an Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on 09.04. seeking ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises. The Rent Contro allowed the petition on 13.09.2011. Thereafter, an execution petition was filed on 15.06. learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar. During execution, respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 filed separate objections. objections, the respondents preferred their respective appeals 2023 and CA No. 101 of 2023, on 22.03.2023 District Judge, Amritsar, against the order dated 16.02. t is contended that the execution petition has remained pending since 2012 without any interim stay, solely due to frivolous objections and dilatory tactics adopted by the respondents. The prolonged pendency has deprived the petitioner of the fruits of the ejectment order for nearly fourteen years. It is further urged that even earlier, atte stall execution had been rejected, yet the matter has not reached finality due to repeated objections and successive appeals. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his assistance. is evident that the rent petition was instituted in allowed on 13.09.2011. The execution petition, filed on 15 -2- learned Executing Court, whereby the objections preferred by the respondents to The petitioner had filed a rent petition under Section 13 of the East 09.04.2008 against one Rajiv Bhatia seeking ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises. The Rent Contro cution petition was filed on 15.06.2012 before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar. During execution, respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 filed separate objections. Despite dismissal of objections, the respondents preferred their respective appeals, CMA No. 47 of , on 22.03.2023 before the learned Additional sar, against the order dated 16.02.2023. These appeals are still t is contended that the execution petition has remained pending since rim stay, solely due to frivolous objections and dilatory tactics adopted by the respondents. The prolonged pendency has deprived the petitioner of the fruits of the ejectment order for nearly fourteen years. It is further urged that even earlier, attempts by the respondents to stall execution had been rejected, yet the matter has not reached finality due to I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record is evident that the rent petition was instituted in the year 2008 and 2011. The execution petition, filed on 15.06.2012, has remained learned Executing Court, whereby the objections preferred by the respondents to The petitioner had filed a rent petition under Section 13 of the East 2008 against one Rajiv Bhatia seeking ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises. The Rent Controller 2012 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar. During execution, respondents Despite dismissal of CMA No. 47 of before the learned Additional 2023. These appeals are still t is contended that the execution petition has remained pending since rim stay, solely due to frivolous objections and dilatory tactics adopted by the respondents. The prolonged pendency has deprived the mpts by the respondents to stall execution had been rejected, yet the matter has not reached finality due to I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record the year 2008 and 2012, has remained TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5405-2025 (O&M) undecided till date. The protracted pendency is primarily on account of repeated and untenable objection 8. It is a settled principle that once a decree has attained finality, the decree-holder is entitled to its fruits without unreasonable delay. Court, in Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu emphasised that procedural delays must be curtailed and courts should adopt a proactive approach in ensuring that trials proceed without undue adjournments, particularly when par 9. In the present case, continued pendency of appeals arising from dismissal of execution objections is prolonging the matter beyond reasonable limits. 10. Accordingly, the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, is requested to dispose of CMA No. 47 of 2023 and CA No. 101 of 2023, arising from the order dated as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party. 11. With the above observations and civil revision petition 12. Pending August 13, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) undecided till date. The protracted pendency is primarily on account of repeated and untenable objections by the respondents. It is a settled principle that once a decree has attained finality, the holder is entitled to its fruits without unreasonable delay. Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 emphasised that procedural delays must be curtailed and courts should adopt a proactive approach in ensuring that trials proceed without undue adjournments, particularly when parties are of advanced age. In the present case, continued pendency of appeals arising from dismissal of execution objections is prolonging the matter beyond reasonable Accordingly, the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, is to dispose of CMA No. 47 of 2023 and CA No. 101 of 2023, arising from the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the Executing Court, as expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party. With the above observations and directions, civil revision petitions stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- undecided till date. The protracted pendency is primarily on account of repeated It is a settled principle that once a decree has attained finality, the holder is entitled to its fruits without unreasonable delay. The Supreme Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249, and Salem v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344, emphasised that procedural delays must be curtailed and courts should adopt a proactive approach in ensuring that trials proceed without undue adjournments, In the present case, continued pendency of appeals arising from dismissal of execution objections is prolonging the matter beyond reasonable Accordingly, the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, is to dispose of CMA No. 47 of 2023 and CA No. 101 of 2023, arising 2023 passed by the Executing Court, as expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party. directions, both the above-numbered application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No undecided till date. The protracted pendency is primarily on account of repeated It is a settled principle that once a decree has attained finality, the The Supreme Salem has emphasised that procedural delays must be curtailed and courts should adopt a proactive approach in ensuring that trials proceed without undue adjournments, In the present case, continued pendency of appeals arising from dismissal of execution objections is prolonging the matter beyond reasonable Accordingly, the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, is to dispose of CMA No. 47 of 2023 and CA No. 101 of 2023, arising 2023 passed by the Executing Court, as expeditiously numbered TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document