IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 114 CR-3231-2026 Pawan Kumar and Others …..Pe))oners Vs. Ms. Ratan Bhandari and Others .….Respondents 122 CR-3257-2026 Pawan Kumar and Others …..Pe))oners Vs. Ms. Ratan Bhandari and Others .….Respondents Date of Decision.: 17.04.2026 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: - Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Mr. Krika Sagar Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Ms. Sandhya Gaur, Advocates, for the peoner (in CR-3231-2026) Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Mr. Krika Sagar Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Ms. Sandhya Gaur, Advocates, for the peoner (in CR-3257-2026) Mr. Brij Mohan Vinayak and Mr. Kunal Vinayak, Advocates, for respondents No.1 to 7/caveators (in CR-3257-2026). **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Both these revisions arise out of the same ligaon between the pares and, therefore, are being decided together. 2. The suit filed by the plainffs (respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein) was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide judgment & decree dated 25.08.2021, granng the following reliefs: NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3231-2026 CR-3257-2026 a. Decree for possession of land measuring 101 kanals 14 marlas, being the subject ma?er of the impugned sale deed dated 18.07.2005, with a direcon to defendants No.1 to 3, 3A to 3J and defendants No.13 to 15, including subsequent purchasers, to hand over possession to the plainffs as reflected in the jamabandi for the year 2017-18. b. Decree for declaraon that the power of a?orney dated 11.03.2004, sale deed dated 18.07.2005, consequenal sale deed dated 16.05.2006 and subsequent sale deed dated 30.10.2012 were illegal, null and void and conferred no right, tle or interest upon the pur- chasers. c. Decree of permanent injuncon restraining the defendants from fur- ther alienang any part of the suit property. d. Decree for recovery of mesne profits/charges for unauthorized use and occupaon at the rate of ₹5,08,500/- per annum, subject to de- posit of ad valorem court fee by the plainffs. 3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the de- fendants preferred an appeal. During pendency of the appeal, the learned Addional District Judge, Amritsar, while deciding an applicaon under Or- der XLI Rule 5 CPC vide order dated 12.01.2026, stayed operaon of the de- cree subject to payment of mesne profits at the rate of ₹40,000/- per killa per year in respect of the suit land measuring 101 kanals 14 marlas. The ap- pellants were directed to deposit the said amount before the trial Court within one month of accrual, failing which the interim protecon was to stand vacated automacally. 4. It is not disputed before this Court that the peoners-defend- ants failed to comply with the aforesaid condional order. Consequently, the decree-holders iniated execuon proceedings. The learned Execung Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3231-2026 CR-3257-2026 Court, vide order dated 27.03.2026, declined the prayer for stay of execu- on and issued warrants of possession through the concerned Tehsildar. ThereaHer, another applicaon for stay was also dismissed on 07.04.2026. 5. Order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Addional District Judge has been challenged in CR No.3231 of 2026, whereas orders dated 27.03.2026 and 07.04.2026 passed by the Execung Court have been assailed in CR No.3257 of 2026. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the peoners fairly con- cedes that the condion regarding payment of mesne profits has not been complied with. However, prayer has been made that some reasonable me be granted to deposit the amount, contending that substanal quesons arise in the appeal and, if possession is delivered in execuon, the appeal itself may be rendered infructuous. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/decree-holders – caveators submits that while he has no objecon to grant of short indulgence, the amount directed to be deposited should be released to the decree-holders and the appeal be directed to be decided expediously. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the pares and upon considera- on of the peculiar facts of the case, this Court is of the view that while a lig- ant, who has failed to comply with a condional stay order cannot claim equity as a ma?er of right, yet the appellate remedy should not be rendered illusory, if compliance can sll be secured within a fixed meframe. The bal- ance of convenience would, therefore, be served by protecng possession for a limited period subject to strict adherence to monetary condions. 9. Accordingly, both the revisions are disposed of with the following direcons:
The peoners shall deposit the enre amount of mesne profits pay- able in terms of order dated 12.01.2026. Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3231-2026 CR-3257-2026
FiHy per cent of the total amount due ll date shall be deposited on or before 10.05.2026. Upon such deposit, the same may be released to the respondents/decree-holders subject to furnishing security to the sasfacon of the trial Court.
The remaining fiHy per cent shall be deposited on or before 30.06.2026. The said amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit with a naonalized bank carrying maximum available interest, subject to final outcome of the appeal.
The peoners shall connue to deposit future mesne profits within fiHeen days of each accrual ll disposal of the appeal.
Till 10.05.2026, further proceedings in execuon shall remain stayed. If the first instalment is not deposited within the spulated period, the Execung Court shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.
If the enre amount is deposited in terms of this order by 30.06.2026, further execuon proceedings shall remain stayed ll disposal of the appeal.
The learned First Appellate Court shall make every possible endeavour to decide the pending appeal preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 17, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document