CR-5720-2025 (O&M) 132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s Ashok Karyana Store Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yada, Mr. Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent (through V.C) MANDEEP PANNU 1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution i) (Junior Division), Kanina stay of execution proceedings was under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 27.05.2025 remains pending; and ii) District Judge, Narnaul, (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the lower Appellate Court’) preferred against the order dated 27.05.2025, on the ground of non maintainability in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Reserved on: Decided on : M/s Ashok Karyana Store VERSUS Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yada, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent (through V.C) -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging following Order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the learned (Junior Division), Kanina, whereby the stay of execution proceedings was under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 27.05.2025 remains pending; and Order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the le District Judge, Narnaul, (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the lower Appellate Court’) dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred against the order dated 27.05.2025, on the ground of non maintainability in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5720-2025 (O&M) Reserved on:-25.08.2025 Decided on :- 28.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 following two orders: Order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge , whereby the prayer of the petitioner stay of execution proceedings was declined while his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 27.05.2025 remains pending; and Order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the lower dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred against the order dated 27.05.2025, on the ground of non maintainability in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. - The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 Civil Judge prayer of the petitioner for while his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree ned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the lower dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred against the order dated 27.05.2025, on the ground of non- TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5720-2025 (O&M) Brief Facts 2. Facts in brief are that respondent/plaintiff against petitione petitioner/defendant No.1. proceeded against ex him. Respondent/plaintiff petitioner/defendant No.1 came to know about the ex dated 16.08.2024 passed against him. Thereafter Order IX Rule 3 CPC for setting aside the ex application for stay of execution proceedings or status quo be maintain his property be not attached. 3. However, learned the application vide impugned order dated 27.05.2025. 4. Thereafter, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 wh being not maintainable. 5. Feeling aggrieved 27.05.2025 and 06.08.2025 passed by the Courts below, the present petition has been filed. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was pending, the execution ought to have been stayed till the decision thereof, and that the lower suiting the appeal as not maintainable. (O&M) Facts in brief are that respondent/plaintiff against petitioner/defendant No.1. Summons defendant No.1. However, on his non- proceeded against ex-parte and ex-parte judgment and decree was passed against him. Respondent/plaintiff – Bank filed execution petition, petitioner/defendant No.1 came to know about the ex dated 16.08.2024 passed against him. Thereafter Rule 3 CPC for setting aside the ex application for stay of execution proceedings or status quo be maintain his property be not attached. However, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanina, dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 27.05.2025. Thereafter, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 which was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court being not maintainable. Feeling aggrieved by the above 27.05.2025 and 06.08.2025 passed by the Courts below, the present has been filed. of learned counsel for the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was pending, the execution ought to have been stayed till the decision thereof, and that the lower suiting the appeal as not maintainable. -2- Facts in brief are that respondent/plaintiff-Bank filed suit for recovery r/defendant No.1. Summons were issued to the -appearance despite service, he was parte judgment and decree was passed against Bank filed execution petition, it is only then that the petitioner/defendant No.1 came to know about the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 16.08.2024 passed against him. Thereafter, he had filed an application under Rule 3 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and moved an application for stay of execution proceedings or status quo be maintained and that Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanina, dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 27.05.2025. Thereafter, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the ich was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court the above-said impugned orders dated 27.05.2025 and 06.08.2025 passed by the Courts below, the present civil revision of learned counsel for the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was pending, the execution ought to have been stayed till the decision thereof, and that the lower Appellate Court erred in non - Bank filed suit for recovery were issued to the appearance despite service, he was parte judgment and decree was passed against is only then that the arte judgment and decree he had filed an application under and moved an ed and that Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanina, dismissed Thereafter, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the ich was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court said impugned orders dated civil revision Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was pending, the execution ought to have been erred in non- TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5720-2025 (O&M) 7. Per contra petition and support application under that the order declining interim stay is not appea as has rightly been held by the lower Appellate Court. 8. I have heard the l record. Findings 9. It is well settled Order IX Rule 13 CPC does not stay the operation or execution of the ex decree. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) was, therefore, correct in observing that pendency of itself, a ground to stall the execution. was not validly served in civil suit Order IX Rule 13 CPC and is no ground to This is particularly so in civil suit but still chose not to defen parte. The refusal to grant stay cannot be said error or perversity warranting interference in revision. 10. As regards the maintainability of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the order dated 27.05.2025 refusing to grant stay is not included in the catalogue of appealable orders under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. The learned Lower Appellate Court rightly has held that the Civil Miscellaneous therefore, dismissed the same on that preliminary ground. This finding is in consonance with settled law. (O&M) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent petition and supported the impugned orders, contending that pendency of application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC does not operate as that the order declining interim stay is not appea as has rightly been held by the lower Appellate Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the is well settled law that the mere pendency of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC does not stay the operation or execution of the ex The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) was, therefore, correct in observing that pendency of application under Order itself, a ground to stall the execution. Similarly whether petitioner/defendant No.1 was not validly served in civil suit, is to be seen on merits in an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and is no ground to grant stay of execution, at this stage. his is particularly so when summons prima facie show that defendant was served in civil suit but still chose not to defend the suit and was thus proceeded The refusal to grant stay cannot be said error or perversity warranting interference in revision. As regards the maintainability of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the order dated 27.05.2025 refusing to grant stay is not included in the catalogue of le orders under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. The learned Lower Appellate Court ld that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was not maintainable, and dismissed the same on that preliminary ground. This finding is in consonance with settled law. -3- , learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has opposed the impugned orders, contending that pendency of does not operate as an automatic stay and that the order declining interim stay is not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC as has rightly been held by the lower Appellate Court. earned counsel for the parties and perused the that the mere pendency of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC does not stay the operation or execution of the ex-parte The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) was, therefore, correct in Order IX Rule 13 CPC was not, by Similarly whether petitioner/defendant No.1 is to be seen on merits in an application under grant stay of execution, at this stage. when summons prima facie show that defendant was served d the suit and was thus proceeded against ex The refusal to grant stay cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference in revision. As regards the maintainability of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the order dated 27.05.2025 refusing to grant stay is not included in the catalogue of le orders under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. The learned Lower Appellate Court Appeal was not maintainable, and dismissed the same on that preliminary ground. This finding is in - Bank has opposed the the impugned orders, contending that pendency of an automatic stay and lable under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC earned counsel for the parties and perused the that the mere pendency of an application under parte The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) was, therefore, correct in was not, by Similarly whether petitioner/defendant No.1 is to be seen on merits in an application under grant stay of execution, at this stage. when summons prima facie show that defendant was served against ex- to suffer from any jurisdictional As regards the maintainability of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the order dated 27.05.2025 refusing to grant stay is not included in the catalogue of le orders under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. The learned Lower Appellate Court Appeal was not maintainable, and dismissed the same on that preliminary ground. This finding is in TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5720-2025 (O&M) 11. Both the impugned orders dated 27.05.2025 and 06.08.2025 reflect correct application of law. 13 CPC is justified, and the lower A an appeal against suc CPC. 12. However, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 CPC shall be decided expeditiously, so that the rights of the parties are Conclusion 13. The 27.05.2025 and 06.08.2025 are upheld. The Trial Court shall dispose of the pending application under possible. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 28, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) Both the impugned orders dated 27.05.2025 and 06.08.2025 reflect correct application of law. The refusal of stay pending decision of is justified, and the lower Appellate C an appeal against such refusal, since no such remedy lies under Order 43 Rule 1 However, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the under Order IX Rule 13 CPC shall be decided expeditiously, so that the rights of the parties are adjudicated finally without undue delay. The present civil revision is dismissed. Both the orders dated 27.05.2025 and 06.08.2025 are upheld. The Trial Court shall dispose of the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on merits Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- Both the impugned orders dated 27.05.2025 and 06.08.2025 reflect The refusal of stay pending decision of Order IX Rule Court correctly declined to entertain h refusal, since no such remedy lies under Order 43 Rule 1 However, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the application of under Order IX Rule 13 CPC shall be decided expeditiously, so that adjudicated finally without undue delay. evision is dismissed. Both the orders dated 27.05.2025 and 06.08.2025 are upheld. The Trial Court shall dispose of the Order IX Rule 13 CPC on merits as expeditiously as Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - Both the impugned orders dated 27.05.2025 and 06.08.2025 reflect Rule ourt correctly declined to entertain h refusal, since no such remedy lies under Order 43 Rule 1 application of under Order IX Rule 13 CPC shall be decided expeditiously, so that evision is dismissed. Both the orders dated 27.05.2025 and 06.08.2025 are upheld. The Trial Court shall dispose of the expeditiously as TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document