IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 123 CR-3458-2026 Date of Decision.: 23.04.2026 Swaran Singh (since deceased) son of Jeet Singh thr LRs …..Pe22oners Vs. Shashi Bhushan and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the peoners. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The factual matrix, as borne out from the record, is that the present peoners were impleaded as legal representaves of defendant No.2, Swaran Singh, in Civil Suit No.1445 of 2006/2008 tled “Shashi Bhushan and another vs. Bhajan Singh and another”, instuted for grant of a decree of specific performance. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the peoners and they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 24.03.2009. Consequently, the suit came to be decreed ex parte by the learned trial Court on 14.07.2014. 2. Aggrieved thereof, the peoners moved an applicaon under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking se9ng aside of the ex parte judgment and decree. The said applicaon was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 06.09.2017 (Annexure P-2). The appeal preferred against the said order also came to be dismissed by the learned Addional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, vide judgment dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure P-3). NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.24 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3458-2026 3. The above orders are now assailed before this court with further prayer to stay execuon proceedings. 4. It is an admi;ed posion that the peoners were duly represented by counsel before both the Courts below at the me of adjudicaon of the proceedings culminang in the impugned orders. The present peon has, however, been filed only in April, 2026, i.e. a<er a delay of more than two years from the date of dismissal of the appeal, and that too at a stage, when execuon proceedings pursuant to the decree have already been iniated. 5. When queried, learned counsel for the peoners was unable to furnish any plausible or sasfactory explanaon for such inordinate delay in invoking the supervisory jurisdicon of this Court. 6. It is trite that the jurisdicon of this Court under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India is discreonary and equitable in nature. A ligant who approaches the Court belatedly, without any jusfiable cause, is not entled to invoke such jurisdicon as a ma;er of right. The doctrine of delay and laches is founded on sound public policy that there must be finality to ligaon and that stale claims ought not to be entertained, parcularly when third party rights may have intervened or proceedings have a;ained finality. 7. In the present case, not only did the peoners allow the ex parte decree dated 14.07.2014 to a;ain finality, but even a<er dismissal of their applicaon under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and the subsequent appeal, they chose to remain indolent for a considerable period. The ming of the present peon, filed only a<er iniaon of execuon proceedings, clearly reflects an a;empt to stall the enforcement of a decree which has otherwise a;ained finality. 8. Even otherwise, no ground has been made out to demonstrate any jurisdiconal error, perversity, or patent illegality in the impugned Page No. 2 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.24 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3458-2026 orders passed by the Courts below so as to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdicon. 9. In view of the above, this Court finds that the present peon is hopelessly barred by delay and laches and is devoid of merit. 10. Accordingly, the peon stands dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 23, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 3 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.24 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document