Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 98543 (PNJ)

JASBIR SINGH v. AJIT AND OTHERS

CR/6175/2025 · 2025-09-08

Mandeep Pannu

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CR-6175-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jasbir Singh Ajit and Others CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Tanmoy Gupta MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner/decree holder assailing the order dated (Junior Division), whereby the application fi petition was not decided finally but the matter was adjourned to obtaining the report of the Ahlmad regarding the status of the execution petition. Brief Facts 2. The material facts are filed a suit for possession by way of partition against the respondents/judgment debtors. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated whereby the shares of the parties were specified passed. The matter was thereafter adjourned to mode of partition. The Halqa Girdawar was appointed as Local Commissioner. 3. The judgment debtors moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the decree dated (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner/decree holder assailing the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Executing Court’) whereby the application filed by the petitioner for restoration of his execution petition was not decided finally but the matter was adjourned to obtaining the report of the Ahlmad regarding the status of the execution petition. The material facts are not in dispute. The petitioner/decree holder had filed a suit for possession by way of partition against the respondents/judgment debtors. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated whereby the shares of the parties were specified passed. The matter was thereafter adjourned to mode of partition. The Halqa Girdawar was appointed as Local Commissioner. The judgment debtors moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the decree dated 30.08.2022 and also filed an application -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6175-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 08.09.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. The present civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner/decree 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Executing Court’) led by the petitioner for restoration of his execution petition was not decided finally but the matter was adjourned to 03.11.2025 obtaining the report of the Ahlmad regarding the status of the execution petition. not in dispute. The petitioner/decree holder had filed a suit for possession by way of partition against the respondents/judgment debtors. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 30.08.2022, whereby the shares of the parties were specified and a preliminary decree was passed. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 04.10.2022 for preparation of the mode of partition. The Halqa Girdawar was appointed as Local Commissioner. The judgment debtors moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 2022 and also filed an application - The present civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner/decree 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Executing Court’), led by the petitioner for restoration of his execution for obtaining the report of the Ahlmad regarding the status of the execution petition. not in dispute. The petitioner/decree holder had filed a suit for possession by way of partition against the respondents/judgment 2022, and a preliminary decree was 2022 for preparation of the The judgment debtors moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 2022 and also filed an application TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6175-2025 (O&M) under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC for stay of the execution. Both applications were dismissed. Warrants of possession 22.02.2024. Objections to the mode of partition filed by the judgment debtors were also dismissed. 4. Vide order dated Girdawar to visit the spot with relevant r holder and also directed the SHO to provide police aid if required. The matter was adjourned to 29.07. 5. During this period, a Panchayat was convened on settlement was arrived at settlement. On 29.07. they would deliver possession as per the decree within one year, failing which they would be liable to pay decree. The petitioner also made his statement. On that basis, the petition was consigned to the record room with liberty to restore in case of default. 6. Admittedly, the decree has not been complied wit delivered till 01.08. 04.08.2025 seeking restoration of the execution petition. Instead of directing immediate execution of the decree, the dated 04.08.2025, Ahlmad and summoning the main file. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the judgment debtors had failed to deliver possession by to have straightaway restored the execution and issued warrants of possession, with (O&M) under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC for stay of the execution. Both applications were dismissed. Warrants of possession were issued on 2024. Objections to the mode of partition filed by the judgment debtors were Vide order dated 11.07.2024, the E Girdawar to visit the spot with relevant records to deliver possession to the decree holder and also directed the SHO to provide police aid if required. The matter was 29.07.2024 for report. During this period, a Panchayat was convened on settlement was arrived at. However, the judgment debtors backed out from the 29.07.2024, the judgment debtors made a statement in they would deliver possession as per the decree within one year, failing which they would be liable to pay ₹20,00,000/- to the petitioner, treating it as part of the decree. The petitioner also made his statement. On that basis, the etition was consigned to the record room with liberty to restore in case of default. Admittedly, the decree has not been complied wit 01.08.2025. The decree holder, therefore, filed an application dated 2025 seeking restoration of the execution petition. Instead of directing immediate execution of the decree, the Executing dated 04.08.2025, adjourning the case to 03.11.2025 for obtaining the report of the Ahlmad and summoning the main file. of learned counsel for the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the judgment debtors had failed to deliver possession by 01.08.2025, the E to have straightaway restored the execution and issued warrants of possession, with -2- under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC for stay of the execution. Both applications were were issued on 13.02.2024 for delivery on 2024. Objections to the mode of partition filed by the judgment debtors were 11.07.2024, the Executing Court directed the Halqa ecords to deliver possession to the decree holder and also directed the SHO to provide police aid if required. The matter was During this period, a Panchayat was convened on 22.07.2024 and a . However, the judgment debtors backed out from the 2024, the judgment debtors made a statement in Court that they would deliver possession as per the decree within one year, failing which they e petitioner, treating it as part of the decree. The petitioner also made his statement. On that basis, the execution etition was consigned to the record room with liberty to restore in case of default. Admittedly, the decree has not been complied with, nor possession 2025. The decree holder, therefore, filed an application dated 2025 seeking restoration of the execution petition. Instead of directing xecuting Court passed the impugned order 2025 for obtaining the report of the of learned counsel for the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the judgment 01.08.2025, the Executing Court ought to have straightaway restored the execution and issued warrants of possession, with - under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC for stay of the execution. Both applications were 2024 for delivery on 2024. Objections to the mode of partition filed by the judgment debtors were ourt directed the Halqa ecords to deliver possession to the decree holder and also directed the SHO to provide police aid if required. The matter was 2024 and a . However, the judgment debtors backed out from the ourt that they would deliver possession as per the decree within one year, failing which they e petitioner, treating it as part of the xecution etition was consigned to the record room with liberty to restore in case of default. h, nor possession 2025. The decree holder, therefore, filed an application dated 2025 seeking restoration of the execution petition. Instead of directing order 2025 for obtaining the report of the Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the judgment ourt ought to have straightaway restored the execution and issued warrants of possession, with TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6175-2025 (O&M) police aid if necessar the impugned order, by merely calling for the report of the Ahlmad and fixing the case after three months, has the effect of unnecessarily prolonging the execution proceedings to the prejudice Findings 8. Having heard learned counsel and having gone through the record, this Court finds as under: (i) It is not in dispute that the decree dated favour of the petitioner and has attained finality, the app the judgment debtors for setting aside the decree having been dismissed. (ii) The execution petition had been consigned to the record room on 29.07. restore in case of non (iii) The decree holder filed the application dated restoration on the ground that the judgment debtors had failed to deliver possession by (iv) The and the case be 9. So far as the calling of the Ahlmad’s report is concerned, this Court finds no illegality. It is a routine and necessary step whenever a file has been consigned to the record room entitled to verify the status of the record before proceeding further. 10. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially with regard to the long adjournment of nearly three months. In this regard, it is sufficient to observe that if (O&M) police aid if necessary, as per the directions earlier recorded. It is submitted that the impugned order, by merely calling for the report of the Ahlmad and fixing the case after three months, has the effect of unnecessarily prolonging the execution proceedings to the prejudice of the decree holder. Having heard learned counsel and having gone through the record, this Court finds as under: (i) It is not in dispute that the decree dated favour of the petitioner and has attained finality, the app the judgment debtors for setting aside the decree having been dismissed. (ii) The execution petition had been consigned to the record room on 29.07.2024, based on the statements of the parties, with liberty to restore in case of non-compliance. (iii) The decree holder filed the application dated restoration on the ground that the judgment debtors had failed to deliver possession by 01.08.2025. (iv) The Executing Court directed that the Ahlmad’s report be called and the case be listed on 03.11.2025. So far as the calling of the Ahlmad’s report is concerned, this Court finds no illegality. It is a routine and necessary step whenever a file has been consigned to the record room and restoration is sought. The E entitled to verify the status of the record before proceeding further. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially with regard to the long adjournment of nearly three months. In this regard, it is sufficient to observe that if -3- y, as per the directions earlier recorded. It is submitted that the impugned order, by merely calling for the report of the Ahlmad and fixing the case after three months, has the effect of unnecessarily prolonging the execution of the decree holder. Having heard learned counsel and having gone through the record, (i) It is not in dispute that the decree dated 30.08.2022 stands in favour of the petitioner and has attained finality, the applications of the judgment debtors for setting aside the decree having been (ii) The execution petition had been consigned to the record room on 2024, based on the statements of the parties, with liberty to (iii) The decree holder filed the application dated 04.08.2025 for restoration on the ground that the judgment debtors had failed to directed that the Ahlmad’s report be called 2025. So far as the calling of the Ahlmad’s report is concerned, this Court finds no illegality. It is a routine and necessary step whenever a file has been and restoration is sought. The Executing Court is entitled to verify the status of the record before proceeding further. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially with regard to the long adjournment of nearly three months. In this regard, it is sufficient to observe that if - y, as per the directions earlier recorded. It is submitted that the impugned order, by merely calling for the report of the Ahlmad and fixing the case after three months, has the effect of unnecessarily prolonging the execution Having heard learned counsel and having gone through the record, 2022 stands in lications of the judgment debtors for setting aside the decree having been (ii) The execution petition had been consigned to the record room on 2024, based on the statements of the parties, with liberty to 2025 for restoration on the ground that the judgment debtors had failed to directed that the Ahlmad’s report be called So far as the calling of the Ahlmad’s report is concerned, this Court finds no illegality. It is a routine and necessary step whenever a file has been ourt is The grievance of the petitioner is essentially with regard to the long adjournment of nearly three months. In this regard, it is sufficient to observe that if TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6175-2025 (O&M) the petitioner/decre him to move an application before the E date. The Executing empowered to prepone the matter and issu 11. The impugned order the ground that a longer adjournment has been given or that the report of the Ahlmad has been called. No perversity or jurisdictional error is made out. Conclusion 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the order dated The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 13. It is, however liberty to move an appropriate application before the preponement of the date, and the E accordance with law, keeping in mind that ex expeditious enforcement of decrees. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 08, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) the petitioner/decree holder apprehends delay or obstruction, it is always open to move an application before the Executing xecuting Court, on being satisfied about urgency, would be fully empowered to prepone the matter and issue appropriate directions. The impugned order dated 04.08.2025 the ground that a longer adjournment has been given or that the report of the Ahlmad has been called. No perversity or jurisdictional error is made out. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner/decree holder shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the eponement of the date, and the Executing Court shall consider such request in accordance with law, keeping in mind that ex expeditious enforcement of decrees. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- e holder apprehends delay or obstruction, it is always open to xecuting Court for preponement of the ourt, on being satisfied about urgency, would be fully e appropriate directions. dated 04.08.2025 cannot be set aside merely on the ground that a longer adjournment has been given or that the report of the Ahlmad has been called. No perversity or jurisdictional error is made out. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no illegality or 2025 passed by the Executing Court. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. , clarified that the petitioner/decree holder shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Executing Court for ourt shall consider such request in accordance with law, keeping in mind that execution proceedings are to ensure Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - e holder apprehends delay or obstruction, it is always open to r preponement of the ourt, on being satisfied about urgency, would be fully cannot be set aside merely on the ground that a longer adjournment has been given or that the report of the In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no illegality or ourt. , clarified that the petitioner/decree holder shall be at ourt for ourt shall consider such request in ecution proceedings are to ensure TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document