CR No.6264 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 116. Saroj through LR M/S Sunbeam Buildtech Pvt. Limited CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. for the petitioner (through VC) *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as petitioners) challenging the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridab Petition No. 80 of XXI Rule 26 CPC 2. In brief, the facts are that t instituted a civil suit for Smt. Saroj (since deceased) the learned trial C execution of the aforesaid the aforesaid ex parte received by them. Thereafter, they CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree, which is pending the trial court. They CR No.6264 of 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6264 of Date of Decision:09.09 LRs Versus Sunbeam Buildtech Pvt. Limited HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. G.C Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (through VC). *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed through LRs of Saroj (hereinafter referred to challenging the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridabad (for short the Executing Court) Petition No. 80 of 2025, whereby their objections XXI Rule 26 CPC have been dismissed. In brief, the facts are that the respondent/decree instituted a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell against (since deceased), which came to be decreed ex parte on 06.08.2022 by trial Court. On 13.02.2025, the respondent execution of the aforesaid ex parte decree and the ex parte decree on 17.07.2025 when notice of the execution was received by them. Thereafter, they moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree, which is pending They also filed objections along with an application under Order IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6264 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:09.09.2025 …Petitioner ... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the has been filed through LRs of Saroj (hereinafter referred to challenging the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil ad (for short the Executing Court) in Execution 2025, whereby their objections and application under Order he respondent/decree-holder had specific performance of an agreement to sell against , which came to be decreed ex parte on 06.08.2022 by On 13.02.2025, the respondent-decree holder had filed and the petitioners came to know about decree on 17.07.2025 when notice of the execution was moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree, which is pending consideration before filed objections along with an application under Order The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the has been filed through LRs of Saroj (hereinafter referred to challenging the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil in Execution and application under Order had specific performance of an agreement to sell against , which came to be decreed ex parte on 06.08.2022 by had filed came to know about decree on 17.07.2025 when notice of the execution was moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 consideration before filed objections along with an application under Order PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.16 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR No.6264 of 2025 (O&M) XXI Rule 26 CPC seeking stay of execution. The executing court d same on 03.09.2025 Order IX Rule 13 liberty to avail the recourse of 3. Learned counsel for already filed the application of the ex parte decree dated 06.08.2022 as they came to know about the passing of the aforesaid decree order is passed on the said application by the learned trial Court, the exe proceedings must sta the very purpose of filing of application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and irreparable loss and injury would compensated in any manner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the paper book and finds that there is no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. court, the Executing Court is mandated to proceed with execution proceedings, as filing of an appeal automatically halt 26 CPC enable the judgment debtor to decree; or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree or the execution thereof. Meaning thereby, the Executing Court can stay the execution of a decree, upon sufficient cause being shown, only to enable the judgment debtor to apply to the Court having appellate jurisdiction and once such a procedure has been adopted, it is bound to continue with the proceedings unless and until the decree is stayed CR No.6264 of 2025 (O&M) -2- XXI Rule 26 CPC seeking stay of execution. The executing court d same on 03.09.2025 holding that the pendency of 13 is not a ground to stay execution and that the recourse of restitution under Section 144 CPC Learned counsel for the petitioners already filed the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC decree dated 06.08.2022 passed by the learned trial Court as they came to know about the passing of the aforesaid decree order is passed on the said application by the learned trial Court, the exe proceedings must stay, as continuation of execution proceedings would frustrate the very purpose of filing of application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and rreparable loss and injury would be caused to compensated in any manner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the paper book and finds that there is no force in the argument raised by learned petitioners. In the absence of an explicit stay order from a higher court, the Executing Court is mandated to proceed with execution proceedings, as filing of an appeal or application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC does automatically halt said proceedings. Furthermore, provisions of Order XXI Rule 26 CPC enable the judgment debtor to approach or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree or the execution thereof. Meaning thereby, the Executing Court can stay the execution of a decree, upon sufficient cause being shown, only to enable the judgment debtor to apply to the Court by which the decree was passed or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction and once such a procedure has been adopted, it is bound to continue with the proceedings unless and until the decree is stayed XXI Rule 26 CPC seeking stay of execution. The executing court dismissed the holding that the pendency of the application filed under execution and that they are always at restitution under Section 144 CPC. petitioners submits that petitioners have under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside passed by the learned trial Court as soon as they came to know about the passing of the aforesaid decree and thus, till any order is passed on the said application by the learned trial Court, the execution , as continuation of execution proceedings would frustrate the very purpose of filing of application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and caused to them, which cannot be I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the paper book and finds that there is no force in the argument raised by learned n the absence of an explicit stay order from a higher court, the Executing Court is mandated to proceed with execution proceedings, as or application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC does not Furthermore, provisions of Order XXI Rule approach the court, which passed the or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree or the execution thereof. Meaning thereby, the Executing Court can stay the execution of a decree, upon sufficient cause being shown, only to enable the Court by which the decree was passed or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction and once such a procedure has been adopted, it is bound to continue with the proceedings unless and until the decree is stayed ismissed the filed under are always at have aside as soon and thus, till any cution , as continuation of execution proceedings would frustrate the very purpose of filing of application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and , which cannot be I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the paper book and finds that there is no force in the argument raised by learned n the absence of an explicit stay order from a higher court, the Executing Court is mandated to proceed with execution proceedings, as not Furthermore, provisions of Order XXI Rule the court, which passed the or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree or the execution thereof. Meaning thereby, the Executing Court can stay the execution of a decree, upon sufficient cause being shown, only to enable the Court by which the decree was passed or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction and once such a procedure has been adopted, it is bound to continue with the proceedings unless and until the decree is stayed PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.16 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR No.6264 of 2025 (O&M) by the Court to which the judgment the petitioners have approached the same Court which has passed the decree and there is no stay order passed in the said Court and thus, 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court and the same is affirmed. 5. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is dismissed. 6. Needless to say, the observations made hereinabove by this Court shall not be construed to be an Order IX Rule 13 CPC. September 09, 2025 Pankaj* CR No.6264 of 2025 (O&M) -3- by the Court to which the judgment debtor has have approached the same Court which has passed the decree and there is no stay order passed in the said Court and thus, this Court finds no error in the impugne 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court and the same is affirmed. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is dismissed. Needless to say, the observations made hereinabove by this Court shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits Order IX Rule 13 CPC. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) , 2025 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable approached. In the present case, have approached the same Court under Order IX Rule 13 CPC which has passed the decree and there is no stay order passed in their favour by no error in the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court and the same is affirmed. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is dismissed. Needless to say, the observations made hereinabove by this Court shall s of the pending application under (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No approached. In the present case, under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, their favour by d order dated Needless to say, the observations made hereinabove by this Court shall of the pending application under (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.16 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh