CR-5994-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 251 M/s Unnati Industrial Corporation M/s Balbir Singh and Company CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. for the Mr. Anish Setia, Advocate Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate Ms. Baljit Kaur, Advocate for the respondent. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P Jalandhar whereby the stay application filed in the application under Order Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, seeking stay of the operation of the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2022 (Annexure P 2. In brief, the facts, as culled out from the petition, are that the respondent-M/s Balbir Singh and Company and its sister concern namely M/s Balbir Singh and Sons, both proprietorship concern, filed two civil suits for settlement of account/rendition of accounts against the petitioner were dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgments and decrees dated 16.08.2011 and 20.11.2015. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5994 Reserved on: Pronounced on: M/s Unnati Industrial Corporation Versus M/s Balbir Singh and Company HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anish Setia, Advocate Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate Ms. Baljit Kaur, Advocate for the respondent. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-25) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Jalandhar whereby the stay application filed in the application under Order Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, seeking stay of the operation of the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2022 (Annexure P In brief, the facts, as culled out from the petition, are that the M/s Balbir Singh and Company and its sister concern namely M/s Balbir Singh and Sons, both proprietorship concern, filed two civil suits for nt of account/rendition of accounts against the petitioner were dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgments and decrees dated 16.08.2011 and 20.11.2015. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court, both the respondent and its sister IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 5994-2025 (O&M) Reserved on:17.09.2025 Pronounced on:24.09.2025 ... Petitioner ...Respondent AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar whereby the stay application filed in the application under Order Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, seeking stay of the operation of the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2022 (Annexure P-16) has been dismissed. In brief, the facts, as culled out from the petition, are that the M/s Balbir Singh and Company and its sister concern namely M/s Balbir Singh and Sons, both proprietorship concern, filed two civil suits for nt of account/rendition of accounts against the petitioner-firm, which were dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgments and decrees dated 16.08.2011 and 20.11.2015. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgments and Court, both the respondent and its sister The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated Class, IX Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, seeking stay of the operation of the In brief, the facts, as culled out from the petition, are that the M/s Balbir Singh and Company and its sister concern namely M/s Balbir Singh and Sons, both proprietorship concern, filed two civil suits for firm, which were dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgments and decrees dated 16.08.2011 and 20.11.2015. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgments and Court, both the respondent and its sister PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5994-2025 (O&M) concern preferred their respective appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.2017 whereby while passin decree, the respondent was held entitled to settlement of accounts for the business deals between the petitioner and the respondent from 01.04.1995 to 14.10.2002 along with interest @15% per annum on each payment found due from the date of payment accrued till the date of actual realization. However, the appeal preferred by the sister concern of the respondent stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.05.2017. Against the judgment and decree passed by the learned A preferred an appeal before this Court; whereas the sister concern of the respondent being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2017 also came in appeal before this Court. Both the consideration before this Court. 3. During the pendency of aforesaid regular second appeals before this Court, the respondent filed an application dated 21.07.2017 for grant of final decree in pursuance of the judgment and learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. In the said application, notice was issued to the petitioner for 29.09.2017 and since the petitioner had not appeared on 29.09.2017, he was proceeded against filed by the respondent, a local commissioner was appointed, who was examined as AW-1 and on the basis of his report and averments made ex parte final decree dated 18.11.2022 was passed for recovery of an amount of Rs.45,15,273.90 for respondent and the petitioner from 01.04.1995 to 14.10.2002 along with interest 2025 (O&M) -2- concern preferred their respective appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.2017 whereby while passin decree, the respondent was held entitled to settlement of accounts for the business deals between the petitioner and the respondent from 01.04.1995 to 14.10.2002 along with interest @15% per annum on each payment found due from the date payment accrued till the date of actual realization. However, the appeal preferred by the sister concern of the respondent stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.05.2017. Against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before this Court; whereas the sister concern of the respondent being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2017 also came in appeal before this Court. Both the consideration before this Court. During the pendency of aforesaid regular second appeals before this Court, the respondent filed an application dated 21.07.2017 for grant of final decree in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. In the said application, notice was issued to the petitioner for 29.09.2017 and since the petitioner had not appeared on 29.09.2017, he was proceeded against ex parte filed by the respondent, a local commissioner was appointed, who was examined 1 and on the basis of his report and averments made final decree dated 18.11.2022 was passed for recovery of an amount of Rs.45,15,273.90 for settlement of account of business dealings between the respondent and the petitioner from 01.04.1995 to 14.10.2002 along with interest concern preferred their respective appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.2017 whereby while passing a preliminary decree, the respondent was held entitled to settlement of accounts for the business deals between the petitioner and the respondent from 01.04.1995 to 14.10.2002 along with interest @15% per annum on each payment found due from the date payment accrued till the date of actual realization. However, the appeal preferred by the sister concern of the respondent stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.05.2017. Against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2017 dditional District Judge, Jalandhar, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before this Court; whereas the sister concern of the respondent being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2017 also came in appeal before this Court. Both the aforesaid appeals are pending During the pendency of aforesaid regular second appeals before this Court, the respondent filed an application dated 21.07.2017 for grant of final decree dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. In the said application, notice was issued to the petitioner for 29.09.2017 and since the petitioner had not appeared ex parte. Thereafter, on the application filed by the respondent, a local commissioner was appointed, who was examined 1 and on the basis of his report and averments made by the respondent, an final decree dated 18.11.2022 was passed for recovery of an amount of account of business dealings between the respondent and the petitioner from 01.04.1995 to 14.10.2002 along with interest concern preferred their respective appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed vide g a preliminary decree, the respondent was held entitled to settlement of accounts for the business deals between the petitioner and the respondent from 01.04.1995 to 14.10.2002 along with interest @15% per annum on each payment found due from the date payment accrued till the date of actual realization. However, the appeal preferred by the sister concern of the respondent stood dismissed vide judgment dated 17.01.2017 dditional District Judge, Jalandhar, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before this Court; whereas the sister concern of the respondent being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2017 pending During the pendency of aforesaid regular second appeals before this Court, the respondent filed an application dated 21.07.2017 for grant of final decree dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. In the said application, notice was issued to the petitioner for 29.09.2017 and since the petitioner had not appeared hereafter, on the application filed by the respondent, a local commissioner was appointed, who was examined the respondent, an final decree dated 18.11.2022 was passed for recovery of an amount of account of business dealings between the respondent and the petitioner from 01.04.1995 to 14.10.2002 along with interest PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5994-2025 (O&M) @15% per annum after 31.12.2020 31.12.2020 by the local commissioner as explained in his report) till the actual realization. 4. After passing of the final decree dared 18.11.2022, an execution application was filed before the Civil Judge (Junior (hereinafter referred to as the Executing Court) wherein vide order dated 11.07.2023, notice was issued to the petitioner for 04.08.2023. However, despite the fact that the petitioner was not duly served, the respondent immediately f an application under Section 39 CPC for transfer of the decree to the Court at Ahmedabad on the ground that the petitioner immovable properties in the area of Jalandhar. Vide order dated 01.08.2024, the Executing Court or (Senior Division), Ahmedabad on 01.10.2024 at 10:AM sharp. The learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad vide order dated 07.04.2025 had issued notice to the petitioner to appear on 08.05.2025 an petitioner caused his appearance on 08.05.2025 and came to know about the aforesaid proceedings. Thereafter, petitioner had filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex parte final decree date 18.11.2022 along with application of stay of said decree. However, vide order dated 19.08.2025, the application seeking stay of the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 05.08.2017 did not direct service through registered cover for 29.09.2017 and therefore, the said service cannot be deemed to be valid service. Further, on 2025 (O&M) -3- @15% per annum after 31.12.2020 (interest calculation already made upto 31.12.2020 by the local commissioner as explained in his report) till the actual After passing of the final decree dared 18.11.2022, an execution application was filed before the Civil Judge (Junior (hereinafter referred to as the Executing Court) wherein vide order dated 11.07.2023, notice was issued to the petitioner for 04.08.2023. However, despite the fact that the petitioner was not duly served, the respondent immediately f an application under Section 39 CPC for transfer of the decree to the Court at Ahmedabad on the ground that the petitioner immovable properties in the area of Jalandhar. Vide order dated 01.08.2024, the Executing Court ordered the parties to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad on 01.10.2024 at 10:AM sharp. The learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad vide order dated 07.04.2025 had issued notice to the petitioner to appear on 08.05.2025 an petitioner caused his appearance on 08.05.2025 and came to know about the aforesaid proceedings. Thereafter, petitioner had filed an application under Order Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex parte final decree date 18.11.2022 along with application of stay of said decree. However, vide order dated 19.08.2025, the application seeking stay of the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 05.08.2017 did not direct service through registered cover for 29.09.2017 and therefore, the said service cannot be deemed to be valid service. Further, on (interest calculation already made upto 31.12.2020 by the local commissioner as explained in his report) till the actual After passing of the final decree dared 18.11.2022, an execution application was filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as the Executing Court) wherein vide order dated 11.07.2023, notice was issued to the petitioner for 04.08.2023. However, despite the fact that the petitioner was not duly served, the respondent immediately filed an application under Section 39 CPC for transfer of the decree to the Court at Ahmedabad on the ground that the petitioner is not having any movable immovable properties in the area of Jalandhar. Vide order dated 01.08.2024, the dered the parties to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad on 01.10.2024 at 10:AM sharp. The learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad vide order dated 07.04.2025 had issued notice to the petitioner to appear on 08.05.2025 and on receipt of notice, the petitioner caused his appearance on 08.05.2025 and came to know about the aforesaid proceedings. Thereafter, petitioner had filed an application under Order Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex parte final decree date 18.11.2022 along with application of stay of said decree. However, vide order dated 19.08.2025, the application seeking stay of the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar. Hence, the Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 05.08.2017 did not direct service through registered cover for 29.09.2017 and therefore, the said service cannot be deemed to be valid service. Further, on (interest calculation already made upto 31.12.2020 by the local commissioner as explained in his report) till the actual After passing of the final decree dared 18.11.2022, an execution Division), Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as the Executing Court) wherein vide order dated 11.07.2023, notice was issued to the petitioner for 04.08.2023. However, despite iled an application under Section 39 CPC for transfer of the decree to the Court at movable or immovable properties in the area of Jalandhar. Vide order dated 01.08.2024, the dered the parties to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad on 01.10.2024 at 10:AM sharp. The learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad vide order dated 07.04.2025 had issued d on receipt of notice, the petitioner caused his appearance on 08.05.2025 and came to know about the aforesaid proceedings. Thereafter, petitioner had filed an application under Order Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex parte final decree dated 18.11.2022 along with application of stay of said decree. However, vide order dated 19.08.2025, the application seeking stay of the petitioner has been Class, Jalandhar. Hence, the Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 05.08.2017 did not direct service through registered cover for 29.09.2017 and therefore, the said service cannot be deemed to be valid service. Further, on PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5994-2025 (O&M) 29.09.2017 itself, the learned E ex parte. Even the final decree dated 18.11.2022 was passed back of the petitioner solely on the basis of report of the local commissioner, who was appointed on the application and sug submitted that during the pendency of the regular second appeal before this Court, execution of the justice, as the very purpose of the appellate remedy would support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in another Vs. Narinder Pal Singh and others 2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 194 that during the pendency of application under Order be appropriate by the Executing Court to rush with the execution till the decision of the said application. To similar effect, reliance was placed upon judgments passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court in Krishan Trading Company and another 05.03.2024 and (1) RCR (Civil) 288 6. Per contra, learned couns petitioner remained absent before the learned Appellate Court and in that eventuality, final decree was passed on 18.11.2022. In the execution proceedings as well, since the petitioner did not cause appearance, the left with no other option proceeded case was made out by the petitioner seeking stay of the operation of the final decree, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 the stay application vide order dared 19.08.2025. He further submitted that stay 2025 (O&M) -4- 29.09.2017 itself, the learned Executing Court proceeded the petitioner as against Even the final decree dated 18.11.2022 was passed back of the petitioner solely on the basis of report of the local commissioner, who was appointed on the application and suggestion of the respondent. It was further submitted that during the pendency of the regular second appeal before this Court, execution of the ex parte final decree would result into miscarriage of justice, as the very purpose of the appellate remedy would support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in another Vs. Narinder Pal Singh and others 2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 194 that during the pendency of application under Order be appropriate by the Executing Court to rush with the execution till the decision of the said application. To similar effect, reliance was placed upon judgments ordinate Benches of this Court in Krishan Trading Company and another passed in C.R. No.6833 of 2023 on 05.03.2024 and Makhan Singh and others Vs. Harbans Lal and another 2017 (1) RCR (Civil) 288. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner remained absent before the learned Appellate Court and in that eventuality, final decree was passed on 18.11.2022. In the execution proceedings as well, since the petitioner did not cause appearance, the left with no other option proceeded him as against case was made out by the petitioner seeking stay of the operation of the final decree, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1stClass, Jalandhar has rightl the stay application vide order dared 19.08.2025. He further submitted that stay xecuting Court proceeded the petitioner as against Even the final decree dated 18.11.2022 was passed ex parte behind the back of the petitioner solely on the basis of report of the local commissioner, who gestion of the respondent. It was further submitted that during the pendency of the regular second appeal before this final decree would result into miscarriage of justice, as the very purpose of the appellate remedy would be defeated. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Davinder Pal Singh and another Vs. Narinder Pal Singh and others 2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 194 to contend that during the pendency of application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, it will not be appropriate by the Executing Court to rush with the execution till the decision of the said application. To similar effect, reliance was placed upon judgments ordinate Benches of this Court in Parmod alias Rinku Vs. Shri passed in C.R. No.6833 of 2023 on Makhan Singh and others Vs. Harbans Lal and another 2017 el for the respondent submitted that the petitioner remained absent before the learned Appellate Court and in that eventuality, final decree was passed on 18.11.2022. In the execution proceedings as well, since the petitioner did not cause appearance, the Executing Court having as against ex parte. Since no prima facie case was made out by the petitioner seeking stay of the operation of the final Class, Jalandhar has rightly dismissed the stay application vide order dared 19.08.2025. He further submitted that stay xecuting Court proceeded the petitioner as against behind the back of the petitioner solely on the basis of report of the local commissioner, who gestion of the respondent. It was further submitted that during the pendency of the regular second appeal before this final decree would result into miscarriage of be defeated. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the Davinder Pal Singh and to contend Rule 13 CPC, it will not be appropriate by the Executing Court to rush with the execution till the decision of the said application. To similar effect, reliance was placed upon judgments Parmod alias Rinku Vs. Shri passed in C.R. No.6833 of 2023 on Makhan Singh and others Vs. Harbans Lal and another 2017 el for the respondent submitted that the petitioner remained absent before the learned Appellate Court and in that eventuality, final decree was passed on 18.11.2022. In the execution proceedings Executing Court having prima facie case was made out by the petitioner seeking stay of the operation of the final y dismissed the stay application vide order dared 19.08.2025. He further submitted that stay PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5994-2025 (O&M) for execution of money decree cannot be granted deposit of decretal judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vs. M/s Jyoti Ltd. 18.12.2008. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book with their able 8. It would be apposite to reproduce zimni orders dated 05.08.2017 and 29.09.2017 passed by the learned Executing Court, which are as under: “Present: Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, Adv., counsel for decree holder issued for 29.09.2017. Dated:05.08.2017 Present: through RC and the postal receipt is dated 19.08.2017 has placed on the record. Period of 30 days has already expired but RC not received back. The respondent/J.D.s deems to be served. However, none has been appeared No further wait is justified. It appeared that respondent/J.D.s is not willing to contest the present complaint. Hence, respondent/J.D.s is ordered to be proceeded against ex 16.11.2017 f Dated:29.09.2017 2025 (O&M) -5- for execution of money decree cannot be granted decretal amount. In support of his contention, he relied upon the ent passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vs. M/s Jyoti Ltd. passed in Civil Appeal Nos.7410 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book with their able assistance as well as the case laws cited. It would be apposite to reproduce zimni orders dated 05.08.2017 and 29.09.2017 passed by the learned Executing Court, which are as under: Present: Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, Adv., counsel for decree holder Report of Ahlmad received. Now notice to respondent be issued for 29.09.2017. Dated:05.08.2017 Present: Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, Adv., counsel for decree holder None for respondent/J.D.s. As per the report of Ahlmad notice issued to the respondent through RC and the postal receipt is dated 19.08.2017 has placed on the record. Period of 30 days has already expired but RC not received back. The respondent/J.D.s deems to be served. However, none has been appeared on behalf of J.D.s. It is already 04:00 PM. No further wait is justified. It appeared that respondent/J.D.s is not willing to contest the present complaint. Hence, respondent/J.D.s is ordered to be proceeded against ex 16.11.2017 for consideration. Dated:29.09.2017” for execution of money decree cannot be granted by the Appellate Court without amount. In support of his contention, he relied upon the ent passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Malwa Strips Pvt. Ltd. passed in Civil Appeal Nos.7410-7411 of 2008 decided on I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the assistance as well as the case laws cited. It would be apposite to reproduce zimni orders dated 05.08.2017 and 29.09.2017 passed by the learned Executing Court, which are as under:- Present: Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, Adv., counsel for decree holder Report of Ahlmad received. Now notice to respondent be Supreet Kaur, PCS JMIC/Jalandhar UID/PB0370 Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, Adv., counsel for decree holder Ahlmad notice issued to the respondent through RC and the postal receipt is dated 19.08.2017 has placed on the record. Period of 30 days has already expired but RC not received back. The respondent/J.D.s deems to be served. However, on behalf of J.D.s. It is already 04:00 PM. No further wait is justified. It appeared that respondent/J.D.s is not willing to contest the present complaint. Hence, respondent/J.D.s is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. Now to come up on Supreet Kaur, PCS JMIC/Jalandhar UID/PB0370 without amount. In support of his contention, he relied upon the M/s Malwa Strips Pvt. Ltd. 7411 of 2008 decided on I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the It would be apposite to reproduce zimni orders dated 05.08.2017 and Ahlmad notice issued to the respondent through RC and the postal receipt is dated 19.08.2017 has placed on the record. Period of 30 days has already expired but RC not received back. The respondent/J.D.s deems to be served. However, on behalf of J.D.s. It is already 04:00 PM. No further wait is justified. It appeared that respondent/J.D.s is not willing to contest the present complaint. Hence, respondent/J.D.s is come up on PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5994-2025 (O&M) 9. A perusal of the zimni order dated 05.08.2017 reveals that notice was issued to the respondent (petitioner herein) for 29.09.2017. Further, a perusal of zimni order dated 29.09.2017 reveals that as per report of the Ahlmad, notice was issued to the petitioner herein through RC and the postal receipt dated 19.08.2017 was pl of 30 days had expired, petitioner was ordered to be proceeded against From a conjoint reading of both the aforesaid zimni orders, it is apparent that service upon the petitioner was reference made in the zimni order dated 29.09.2017 that service was attempted to be effected through other modes viz; through the process of the Court, dasti process or through counsel appearing for the party in connected with the case. Therefore, without resorting to any other mode of service, the Executing Court rushed with the execution proceedings and declared the petitioner ex parte is presumption of returned back with a postal endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the same or even without endorsement open to the party concerned to place evidence before the Court to rebut the presumption by showing that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or that the postal authorities never tendered the was no occasion for him to refuse the same. 10. At this juncture, i Part B, Chapter 7 of Volume IV of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Order, which deals with service of “PART B 2025 (O&M) -6- A perusal of the zimni order dated 05.08.2017 reveals that notice issued to the respondent (petitioner herein) for 29.09.2017. Further, a perusal of zimni order dated 29.09.2017 reveals that as per report of the Ahlmad, notice was issued to the petitioner herein through RC and the postal receipt dated 19.08.2017 was placed on record and since, RC was not received back and period of 30 days had expired, petitioner was ordered to be proceeded against conjoint reading of both the aforesaid zimni orders, it is apparent that service upon the petitioner was not ordered through RC only and there is no reference made in the zimni order dated 29.09.2017 that service was attempted to be effected through other modes viz; through the process of the Court, dasti process or through counsel appearing for the party in connected with the case. Therefore, without resorting to any other mode of service, the Executing Court rushed with the execution proceedings and declared ex parte on the very first date after ordering notice. is presumption of service of a letter sent under returned back with a postal endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the or even without endorsement but the said open to the party concerned to place evidence before the Court to rebut the presumption by showing that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or that the postal authorities never tendered the registered was no occasion for him to refuse the same. At this juncture, it is also worthwhile to reproduce relevant part of Part B, Chapter 7 of Volume IV of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Order, which deals with service of process as under: PART B—SERVICE OF PROCESS A perusal of the zimni order dated 05.08.2017 reveals that notice issued to the respondent (petitioner herein) for 29.09.2017. Further, a perusal of zimni order dated 29.09.2017 reveals that as per report of the Ahlmad, notice was issued to the petitioner herein through RC and the postal receipt dated aced on record and since, RC was not received back and period of 30 days had expired, petitioner was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. conjoint reading of both the aforesaid zimni orders, it is apparent that not ordered through RC only and there is no reference made in the zimni order dated 29.09.2017 that service was attempted to be effected through other modes viz; through the process of the Court, dasti process or through counsel appearing for the party in any other proceedings connected with the case. Therefore, without resorting to any other mode of service, the Executing Court rushed with the execution proceedings and declared on the very first date after ordering notice. No doubt, there of a letter sent under registered cover, if the same is returned back with a postal endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the presumption is rebuttable and it is open to the party concerned to place evidence before the Court to rebut the presumption by showing that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or registered letter to him or that there t is also worthwhile to reproduce relevant part of Part B, Chapter 7 of Volume IV of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and process as under:- SERVICE OF PROCESS A perusal of the zimni order dated 05.08.2017 reveals that notice issued to the respondent (petitioner herein) for 29.09.2017. Further, a perusal of zimni order dated 29.09.2017 reveals that as per report of the Ahlmad, notice was issued to the petitioner herein through RC and the postal receipt dated aced on record and since, RC was not received back and period ex parte. conjoint reading of both the aforesaid zimni orders, it is apparent that not ordered through RC only and there is no reference made in the zimni order dated 29.09.2017 that service was attempted to be effected through other modes viz; through the process of the Court, dasti any other proceedings connected with the case. Therefore, without resorting to any other mode of service, the Executing Court rushed with the execution proceedings and declared here cover, if the same is returned back with a postal endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the presumption is rebuttable and it is open to the party concerned to place evidence before the Court to rebut the presumption by showing that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or r to him or that there t is also worthwhile to reproduce relevant part of Part B, Chapter 7 of Volume IV of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5994-2025 (O&M) (a) Mode of Service 1. (i) Every attempt should be made to effect personal service in the first instance and failing that service on an agent or a member of the family. The process purpose, if there is time before the date fixed for effecting/scrutiny of service, and obtain for each successive attempt at service, attestation of witnesses different from those who have attested reports of previous attempt (s). In other enumerated in Order V, Rules 12 to 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should be insisted upon and service by affixation as provided in Order V, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, should not be allowed till after the day fixed to be made before the date fixed for scrutiny of service. (ii) As for service by post, Order V, Rule 10 proviso (as added by Punjab amendment) of the Code, provides that where the plaintiff so wishes, the Court may registered post (acknowledgement due) instead of in the mode of service laid down in that rule. Order V, Rule 20(1) proviso (added by amendment) now enables the Court to direct the summons to be served by register reason whatsoever. (iii) The Service of Process to the other party can also be effected through electronic means where the party has furnished the requisite details. xxxxx 11. A per crystal clear that at the first instance e personal service and failing that service For the said purpose, t time before the date fixed for effecting/scrutiny of service in any of the ways enumerated in Order V, Rules 12 to 16 of the Code of Civil 2025 (O&M) -7- (a) Mode of Service 1. (i) Every attempt should be made to effect personal service in the first instance and failing that service on an agent or a member of the family. The process-server should go again an purpose, if there is time before the date fixed for effecting/scrutiny of service, and obtain for each successive attempt at service, attestation of witnesses different from those who have attested reports of previous attempt (s). In other words service in any of the ways enumerated in Order V, Rules 12 to 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should be insisted upon and service by affixation as provided in Order V, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, should not be allowed till after the day fixed for scrutiny. Service by affixation not to be made before the date fixed for scrutiny of service. (ii) As for service by post, Order V, Rule 10 proviso (as added by Punjab amendment) of the Code, provides that where the plaintiff so wishes, the Court may serve the summons in the first instance by registered post (acknowledgement due) instead of in the mode of service laid down in that rule. Order V, Rule 20(1) proviso (added by amendment) now enables the Court to direct the summons to be served by registered post after it has been returned unserved for any reason whatsoever. (iii) The Service of Process to the other party can also be effected through electronic means where the party has furnished the requisite details. xxxxx xxxxx A perusal of the aforesaid High Court Rules and Order makes it crystal clear that at the first instance every attempt should be made to effect personal service and failing that service, on an agent or a member of the family. For the said purpose, the process-server should go again and again, if there is time before the date fixed for effecting/scrutiny of service in any of the ways enumerated in Order V, Rules 12 to 16 of the Code of Civil 1. (i) Every attempt should be made to effect personal service in the first instance and failing that service on an agent or a member of the server should go again and again for this purpose, if there is time before the date fixed for effecting/scrutiny of service, and obtain for each successive attempt at service, attestation of witnesses different from those who have attested reports of words service in any of the ways enumerated in Order V, Rules 12 to 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should be insisted upon and service by affixation as provided in Order V, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, should not be for scrutiny. Service by affixation not to be made before the date fixed for scrutiny of service. (ii) As for service by post, Order V, Rule 10 proviso (as added by Punjab amendment) of the Code, provides that where the plaintiff so serve the summons in the first instance by registered post (acknowledgement due) instead of in the mode of service laid down in that rule. Order V, Rule 20(1) proviso (added by amendment) now enables the Court to direct the summons to be ed post after it has been returned unserved for any (iii) The Service of Process to the other party can also be effected through electronic means where the party has furnished the requisite xxxxx” usal of the aforesaid High Court Rules and Order makes it very attempt should be made to effect on an agent or a member of the family. rver should go again and again, if there is time before the date fixed for effecting/scrutiny of service. In other words service in any of the ways enumerated in Order V, Rules 12 to 16 of the Code of Civil 1. (i) Every attempt should be made to effect personal service in the first instance and failing that service on an agent or a member of the d again for this purpose, if there is time before the date fixed for effecting/scrutiny of service, and obtain for each successive attempt at service, attestation of witnesses different from those who have attested reports of words service in any of the ways enumerated in Order V, Rules 12 to 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should be insisted upon and service by affixation as provided in Order V, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, should not be for scrutiny. Service by affixation not (ii) As for service by post, Order V, Rule 10 proviso (as added by Punjab amendment) of the Code, provides that where the plaintiff so serve the summons in the first instance by registered post (acknowledgement due) instead of in the mode of service laid down in that rule. Order V, Rule 20(1) proviso (added by amendment) now enables the Court to direct the summons to be ed post after it has been returned unserved for any (iii) The Service of Process to the other party can also be effected through electronic means where the party has furnished the requisite usal of the aforesaid High Court Rules and Order makes it very attempt should be made to effect on an agent or a member of the family. rver should go again and again, if there is In other words service in any of the ways enumerated in Order V, Rules 12 to 16 of the Code of Civil PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5994-2025 (O&M) Procedure, should be insisted upon. The provisio (as added by Punjab amendment) of the Code plaintiff wishes that registered post (acknowledgement due) instead of in the mode of service laid down in that R enables the Court to direct the summons to be se has been returned unserved for any reason whatsoever 12. Therefore, the first and for that purpose summons through re wishes to do so, bypassing the other mode of service or at the instance of the Court after the summons are returned unserved for any reason whatsoever. It is not conspicuous from zimni order service was ordered to be effected through registered post (acknowledge due) on the wish of the respondent assigned in the aforesaid orders. Thus, in the opinion of th instance attempts ought to have been made to petitioner-judgment debtor and other modes of services as enumerated under Order V, Rules 12 to 16 Secondly, the presumption of deemed service through registered post in case RC not received back within a period of 30 days is always rebuttable and therefore, it would be in the interest of justice, if a rebut the said presumption by way of leading evidence. 13. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent in M/s Malwa Strips Pvt. Ltd. 2025 (O&M) -8- cedure, should be insisted upon. The provisio (as added by Punjab amendment) of the Code shall be taken into effect wishes that the Court may serve the summons in the first instance by registered post (acknowledgement due) instead of in the mode of service laid Rule. Order V, Rule 20(1) proviso (added by amendment) enables the Court to direct the summons to be se has been returned unserved for any reason whatsoever Therefore, the first attempt should be made to effect personal service and for that purpose efforts should be made again and again. Service of summons through registered post at the first instance can be made if the plaintiff wishes to do so, bypassing the other mode of service or at the instance of the Court after the summons are returned unserved for any reason whatsoever. It is not conspicuous from zimni orders dated 05.08.2017 and 29.09.2017 that the service was ordered to be effected through registered post (acknowledge due) on the wish of the respondent-decree holder nor any such reasons have been assigned in the aforesaid orders. Thus, in the opinion of th instance attempts ought to have been made to judgment debtor and other modes of services as enumerated under Order V, Rules 12 to 16 CPC and not directly by way of registered post. y, the presumption of deemed service through registered post in case RC not received back within a period of 30 days is always rebuttable and therefore, it would be in the interest of justice, if an opportunity presumption by way of leading evidence. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent in M/s Malwa Strips Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present cedure, should be insisted upon. The provisions of Order V, Rule 10 proviso shall be taken into effect where the the Court may serve the summons in the first instance by registered post (acknowledgement due) instead of in the mode of service laid ule. Order V, Rule 20(1) proviso (added by amendment) also enables the Court to direct the summons to be served by registered post after it has been returned unserved for any reason whatsoever. should be made to effect personal service should be made again and again. Service of gistered post at the first instance can be made if the plaintiff wishes to do so, bypassing the other mode of service or at the instance of the Court after the summons are returned unserved for any reason whatsoever. It is s dated 05.08.2017 and 29.09.2017 that the service was ordered to be effected through registered post (acknowledge due) on nor any such reasons have been assigned in the aforesaid orders. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, at the first instance attempts ought to have been made to effect personal service upon the judgment debtor and other modes of services as enumerated under CPC and not directly by way of registered post. y, the presumption of deemed service through registered post in case RC not received back within a period of 30 days is always rebuttable and therefore, it opportunity is given to the petitioner to presumption by way of leading evidence. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent in (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present Order V, Rule 10 proviso where the the Court may serve the summons in the first instance by registered post (acknowledgement due) instead of in the mode of service laid also rved by registered post after it should be made to effect personal service should be made again and again. Service of gistered post at the first instance can be made if the plaintiff wishes to do so, bypassing the other mode of service or at the instance of the Court after the summons are returned unserved for any reason whatsoever. It is s dated 05.08.2017 and 29.09.2017 that the service was ordered to be effected through registered post (acknowledge due) on nor any such reasons have been is Court, at the first upon the judgment debtor and other modes of services as enumerated under CPC and not directly by way of registered post. y, the presumption of deemed service through registered post in case RC not received back within a period of 30 days is always rebuttable and therefore, it is given to the petitioner to The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent in (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5994-2025 (O&M) case as in the said case, the principal amount was admitted by the respondent and his application for leave to defend was allowed, subject to the condition that he will make payment of undisputed and admitted amount, which he failed to do and the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant. In the appeal preferred by the respondent, the High Court stayed the operation and execution of the decree in its entirety and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that stay of execution of decree cannot be granted 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 set aside and the revision petition is allowed. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class is directed to decide the application under Order expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the meantime, there shall be stay of the proceedings before the learned Executing Court Commercial Court, Ahmedabad 15. Misc September 24, 2025 Pankaj* 2025 (O&M) -9- case as in the said case, a summary suit under Order the principal amount was admitted by the respondent and his application for leave to defend was allowed, subject to the condition that he will make payment of undisputed and admitted amount, which he failed to do and the trial Court he suit in favour of the appellant. In the appeal preferred by the respondent, the High Court stayed the operation and execution of the decree in its entirety and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that stay of execution of decree cannot be granted if appellant did not deposit the decretal amount. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 set aside and the revision petition is allowed. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class is directed to decide the application under Order expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the meantime, there shall be stay of the proceedings before the learned Executing Court Commercial Court, Ahmedabad. Miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Order XXXVII CPC was filed and the principal amount was admitted by the respondent and his application for leave to defend was allowed, subject to the condition that he will make payment of undisputed and admitted amount, which he failed to do and the trial Court he suit in favour of the appellant. In the appeal preferred by the respondent, the High Court stayed the operation and execution of the decree in its entirety and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that stay of execution of if appellant did not deposit the decretal amount. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class is directed to decide the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the meantime, there shall be stay of the proceedings before the learned Executing Court i.e. the learned Judge, application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes : Yes was filed and the principal amount was admitted by the respondent and his application for leave to defend was allowed, subject to the condition that he will make payment of undisputed and admitted amount, which he failed to do and the trial Court he suit in favour of the appellant. In the appeal preferred by the respondent, the High Court stayed the operation and execution of the decree in its entirety and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that stay of execution of In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order Class, Jalandhar is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Rule 13 CPC as the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the meantime, there shall be stay the learned Judge, PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh