CR-4861-2026(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 183 CR-4861-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.07.2026 Joginder Singh @ Jogender and Ors. ...... Petitioners V/S Smt. Sukhbiri ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Randhir Singh Hooda, Advocate for petitioners. **** AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioners filed present civil revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India against impugned order dated 22.05.2026 (Annexure P- 12) whereby learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nuh issued warrants of sale in Execution Petition bearing No.173 of 2020 titled as “Sukhbiri v/s Shiv Dutt and Ors.” without considering valid objections raised by the petitioner/judgment-debtor. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners pointed out that Execution Petition No.173 of 2020 titled as “Sukhbiri v/s Shiv Dutt and Ors.” has been filed with regards to the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2014 (Annexure P-1) regarding recovery of Rs.16,06,200/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from 24.12.2008 till realization of decretal amount. Earlier Execution Petition No.79 of 2015 was filed in which warrants of auction were issued but no person participated in the auction proceedings. The decree holder sought permission to participate in the auction proceedings which was allowed by the Executing SUNIL DEVI 2026.07.08 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4861-2026(O&M) -2- Court vide order dated 11.03.2016 (Annexure P-2). Process was issued several times but nobody came forward to purchase the property. Earlier Tehsildar recommended sale of 10 Kanals of land to satisfy the decretal amount. The report dated 05.06.2017 is Annexure P-4. The warrants of sale were issued vide order dated 26.03.2019 (Annexure P-6) regarding 10 Kanalas of land but nobody came forward to purchase and finally the execution application was dismissed as unsatisfied vide order dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure P-7). Again second execution petition (Annexure P-8) was filed to recover the amount by sending the JDs to civil imprisonment for non-compliance of the orders of the court as well as by sale of attached property. The objections (Annexure P-9) were filed by the JDs. On the other hand, decree holder filed calculation sheet to recover Rs.47,06,684/- in pursuance of decree dated 19.12.2014. This time warrants of sale were issued pertaining to 24 Kanals of land vide order dated 06.02.2025 and 22.05.2026 which are Annexure P-11 and P-12. It is pointed out that present petitioners had filed Civil Revision No.1946 of 2025 where it was observed that instead of 24 Kanals of land, 08 Kanals of land be put on auction to satisfy the decretal amount. Without considering this fact by passing impugned order dated 22.05.2026 again warrants of sale have been issued regarding 24 Kanals of land to recover the decretal amount and the next date is 06.07.2026. The impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Entire land of the petitioner cannot be put on auction to recover the alleged amount. Therefore, present civil revision may be allowed and the impugned order dated 22.05.2026 (Annexure P-12) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nuh in the aforesaid execution petition may kindly be set aside by accepting the present civil revision. SUNIL DEVI 2026.07.08 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4861-2026(O&M) -3- 3. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. In the case in hand, there is a decree in favour of respondent/decree holder Sukhbiri in Civil Suit No.161 of 2009 decided on 19.12.2014 vide which the petitioners/JDs were held liable to pay Rs.16,06,200/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from 24.12.2008 till realization of the decretal amount. First execution petition was filed in 2015. At that point of time, warrants of sale were issued, even the decree holder was allowed to participate in the auction proceedings. Since, nobody participated in the auction proceedings, finally the execution petition was dismissed as unsatisfied on 01.07.2019 (Annexure P-7). Second Execution Petition No.173 of 2020 (Annexure P-8) was filed in the which the objections (Annexure P-9) were filed. As per the calculation sheet (Annexure P-10) by including interest up to 31.01.2025, the total amount was calculated as Rs.47,06,684/-. Again warrants of sale have been issued time and again. At present vide impugned order dated 22.05.2026 fresh warrants of sale have been issued qua 24 Kanals of land belonging to JDs and the report is awaited for 06.07.2026. The stand taken by the petitioners/JDs is that only 08 Kanals of land could have been put on auction whereas vide impugned order dated 22.05.2026 (Annexure P-12), 24 Kanals of land has been put on auction. 4. I have considered the aforesaid factual position. Since the passing of judgment and decree dated 19.12.2014, respondent/decree holder is into litigation to recover the amount. Civil Appeal preferred by the respondents/defendants/JDs was dismissed on 18.04.2015 and RSA-2469-2015 was also declined vide judgment dated 18.08.2015. Since then, petitioners are resisting to pay the decretal amount as per the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2014. Till date no payment has been made. From the aforesaid factual SUNIL DEVI 2026.07.08 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4861-2026(O&M) -4- position, It is clear that JDs are having property standing in their name as a result their property has been attached and warrants of sale have been issued from time to time. Order 21 CPC deals with the execution of decree and orders. Order 21 Rule 82 to Rule 96 deals with warrants of sale of immovable property. As per the provisions of CPC, various modes have been prescribed to execute a decree for recovery of money. One of the mode to recover the decretal amount is attachment of the immovable property and putting it on sale in open auction. In order to initiate the auction proceeding, Executing Court is to see the location of the property which has been attached, its circle rate and the decretal amount with interest which is to be recovered by sale of said property. It is for the Executing Court to apply its judicious mind for issuing the process to attach the property and to put it on auction which is sufficient to satisfy the decretal amount. In the case in hand, the petitioners/JDs have failed to bring anything on record to show that excessive land has been attached or put on auction. Therefore, considering the aforesaid factual position, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 22.05.2026 (Annexure P-12) and the same is accordingly upheld. Civil revision preferred by petitioners/JDs is accordingly declined. 5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well. (AMARJOT BHATTI ) JUDGE 06.07.2026. Sunil Devi Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SUNIL DEVI 2026.07.08 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document