1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL 13th MAY, 2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 1302 OF 2026 (M/S) Subhash Chandra and Another ..... Petitioners Versus Ashok Kamboj and Others ..…Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate. Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. By the instant petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs:- (i) To quash/set aside the ex-parte impugned order dated 18.02.2026{Annexure No. 12 & Page 104-106} passed by the Learned Execution Court i.e. Civil Judge (J.D.) Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Civil Execution Case No. 04/2024 “ Subhash Chandra & another Vs. Ashok Kamboj & others” under order 21 rule 32 & 35 of CPC pertaining to Misc. Application No. 5 of 2026 (Application No. 6-Ga) filed by the objector namely Shri Dharamshala Mandir Samiti Jaspur i.e. the respondent no.6 herein whereby aforesaid execution proceedings have been stayed. (ii) To issue an order or direction to the court of Ld. Civil Judge (J.D) Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar to the effect that it shall decide the execution proceedings ofCivil Execution Case No. 04/2024 { New No. 05/2025} “ Subhash Chandra & another Vs. Ashok Kamboj & others” filed under order 21 rule 32 & 35 of CPC which is pending before the Court of Ld. Civil Judge (J.D) Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar expeditiously without unnecessary delay within a shortest span of 4 weeks. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the decree holders of an ex parte decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar dated 29.03.2013 in Civil Suit No. 151 of 2007 Subhash Chandra and others vs. Ashok Kumar Kamboj and others. 1 2 3. Being aggrieved with the ex-parte judgment and decree, the defendant no.1 Ashok Kamboj (President of Kamboj Dharamshala) preferred regular first appeal as Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2013 in the Court of learned District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar which was dismissed for non prosecution on 16.12.2019 however the petitioners were no award about the dismissal of appeal for non prosecution the petitioners were also not aware. In the year 2024, when the petitioners got information about the dismissal of the appeal then on 16.03.2024 the execution application was moved for executing the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2013 numbered as Execution Case No. 04 of 2024 in which on 16.10.2025 the Executing Court directed the court Amin to take steps to remove the legal structure over the property in question and handover the vacant possession to the petitioners. 4. Despite sufficient service upon the respondents they never put appearance before the Executing Court and consequently on 12.01.2026 the Executing Court passed an order for executing the decree and the concerned Amin was directed to take help of local police to demolish the illegal constructions from the property in dispute. 2 3 5. In the meantime, the respondent no.6 moved an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC and on such an application the execution proceeding was stayed. Now being aggrieved with the order passed by the Executing Court dated 18.02.2026, the instant petition has been moved by the petitioners who are in fact the decree holders. 6. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned passed by the Executing Court on an application of respondent no.6 is per se illegal and even the application moved by respondent no.6 was not maintainable since neither he was party in the proceeding nor the judgment debtor. He submits that the Executing Court committed manifest illegality while entertaining the said application of respondent no.6 who is completely stranger to the proceeding. In addition to this, Mr. Chaudhary submits that the actual judgment debtor is Mr. Ashok Kamboj already the objections under Section 47 of CPC before the Executing Court therefore, the respondent no.6 has no locus to move any subsequent application under Ordre XXI Rule 99 of CPC. Mr. Chaudhary also pointed out that the respondent no.6 has no interest over the land in question since he is also not the subsequent purchaser. 3 4 7. He submits that the actual judgment debtor already filed an objection before the Executing Court therefore the Executing Court has no power to entertain any subsequent application moved by any person who is neither the party to the proceeding nor judgment debtor therefore order impugned whereby the execution proceeding is stayed is per se illegal. Mr. Chaudhary also pointed out that the order impugned has been passed without giving opportunity to the petitioners. 8. Be that as it may, already the judgment debtor filed objection under Section under Section 47 of the CPC before the Executing Court and the same is pending for consideration. So far as the order impugned is concerned the Executing Court at least before entertaining the application should have to examine the locus of respondent no.6 but it appears that no such finding has been drawn by the Executing Court in this regard. In such view of the matter, this Court feels that the matter should be remanded back to the Executing Court to decide the application of respondent no.6 moved under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC on its own merit and to decide first the locus of respondent no.6. In addition to this, the ex parte decree was passed in the year 2013 and almost 13 years have passed but the execution proceedings have not been expedited which is against the mandate of law. Therefore, the Executing Court 4 5 should also make an attempt to expedite the entire proceeding as expeditiously as possible. 9. Since the order impugned by the Executing Court dated 18.02.2026 whereby the execution proceedings have been stayed, is quash and set aside, in such view of the matter, the instant writ petition is disposed of by remanding the matter to the Executing Court with the following directions:- (i) The Executing Court shall decide the application of respondent no.6 under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC after giving opportunity to the petitioners the decree holder also and before deciding he shall also examine the locus of respondent no.6. (ii) Since the execution proceedings have been initiated for execution of decree of 2013, the Executing Court is also directed to expedite the execution proceeding positively within two months from the date of presentation of copy of this order. Subject to the directions as above, the writ petition is disposed of. 10. No order as to costs. ___________________ RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J. Nahid 5