CR-1810-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1810-2026 Date of decision: 10.03.2026 M/s Asa Ram Atma Parkash ...Pe""oner Versus M/s Sidhi Vinayak Rice Mills and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Rashika Bansal, Advocate for the pe""oner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Pe""oner is the decree-holder and is aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure P8) passed by Execu"ng Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal, whereby his execu"on has been dismissed with liberty to get the same restored as and when list of property of JD is available for realiza"on of decretal amount. 2. Perusal of the paper-book would reveal that decree for recovery of ₹4,05,661/- along with interest was passed by the trial Court on 02.02.2017 in a suit filed by the pe""oner herein against the firm M/s Sidhi Vinayak Rice Mills, Taraori with four of its partners impleaded as respondents No.2 to 5. For realiza"on of decretal amount, execu"on was filed, wherein JDs No.2, 3 & 5 (respondents No. 2, 3 & 5 herein) were given up. Thus execu"on was sought only against JDs No.1 & 4. 3. Learned trial Court found by way of the impugned order that property details of which were provided by JDs No.1 & 4 was also lying aBached in the earlier execu"on proceedings so as to sa"sfy the decrees obtained by the creditors. It was further found by the Court that insolvency proceedings were already pending against the JDs and no other documents were produced by the decree-holder to establish that JD had other means of livelihood. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.11 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1810-2026 [2] 4. It was in the aforesaid circumstances that learned Execu"ng Court by placing reliance upon Jolly George Varghese and another Vs. Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 470, held that no useful purpose will be served by adjourning the execu"on further. 3rd party objec"ons were allowed and the execu"on pe""on was dismissed for want of list of proper"es of the JDs, but with the direc"on to put a red ink note that said execu"on will not be destroyed. Decree-holder i.e. pe""oner herein was given liberty to get the same restored as and when the property of the JD was available for realiza"on of the decree. 5. Assailing the order, it is contended by learned counsel that Execu"ng Court did not adopt other legal means for sa"sfac"on of the decree. However, it is conceded by learned counsel that the property of the JDs, details of which were available, was already lying aBached in the execu"on of the decrees obtained by other creditors; and that insolvency proceedings are pending against the JDs. 6. In these circumstances when there is nothing to show that JDs are having sufficient means to sa"sfy the decree, the trial Court did not commit any error in disposing of the execu"on for the "me being and by gran"ng liberty to the decree-holder-pe""oner to get the same revived as and when the list of property of the JDs are available for realiza"on. 7. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order and being devoid of any merit, the present revision is hereby dismissed. 10.03.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.11 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document