Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prabhdeep Singh @ Pravdeep Singh Sekhon vs Amritpal Singh on 23 September, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125270
CR-5507-2024 [1]
124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-5507-2024
Date of decision: 23.09.2024
Prabhdeep Singh @ Pravdeep Singh Sekhon
...Petitioner
Versus
Amritpal Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated
29.08.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Ludhiana filed in EXE/12/2022 registered on 05.01.2022 titled as "Amritpal
Singh Vs. Prabhdeep Singh" whereby the objections filed by the petitioner
have been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner, who is a Judgment Debtor, had filed the objections to the
execution and his primary objection was that his appeal filed against the
judgment dated 28.10.2021 is pending and thus, till the time the said appeal
is pending, the judgment dated 28.10.2021 should not be executed and the
petitioner should not be dispossessed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
prayed that till the time his appeal is not decided the judgment of the trial
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125270
CR-5507-2024 [2]
Court be not implemented and his dispossession be stayed.
3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has
perused the paper book and finds that the argument raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is meritless and the revision petition deserves to be
dismissed.
4. The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for possession of the
shop in question in the year 2014. Further prayer was made in the said suit
for recovery of Rs.14,000/- being arrears of lease amount along with interest
at the rate of 18% per annum till realisation. The trial Court vide judgment
dated 28.10.2021 had decreed the said suit and had observed that the
respondent was entitled to possession of the shop in question and was also
entitled for recovery of Rs.14,000/- being arrears of lease amount along with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till
actual realisation. It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed an appeal
against the said judgment. The zimni orders passed in the said appeal have
been fairly annexed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the
zimni order dated 24.04.2023 would show that an application under Order 41
Rule 5 CPC, filed by the petitioner, was disposed of as being not pressed with
the understanding that the main case be preponed to 08.05.2023 and the
Executing Court was directed not to execute the warrants of possession till
08.05.2023 and it was further made clear that if, due to any reason, the appeal
is not be heard on 08.05.2023, then the decree holder/respondent would be at
liberty to get the warrants executed. The zimni order dated 24.04.2023 is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Present: Sh.S.K Bawa, Advocate, counsel for
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125270
CR-5507-2024 [3]
applicant/appellant.
Sh.A.S Rai, Advocate, counsel for respondent.
Pursuant to notice, Sh.A.S Rai, Advocate has appeared on
behalf of respondent, and stated that his regular power of
attorney is already attached with the main file. Main file also
put up by the Ahlmad with this application, which is also
perused. He also suffered a separate statement that in the
ld.lower Court the date is fixed 26.4.2023 in the execution in
which the warrants of possession has already been issued, and
he undertook not to pursue the execution in the ld.lower Court
till next date of hearing, however he reserves his right to insist
the same if other Counsel for the appellant will not argue the
matter on merits and he has no objection if the present appeal
may be preponed. Pursuant to it, ld.Counsel for appellant has
suffered a statement that he has heard the statement of
ld.Counsel for respondent, and in view of the statement, he
withdrew the present application dated 17.4.2023 and he
undertook to argue the matter on the next date of hearing
whichever will be fixed by preponing the appeal.
In view of the above circumstances, and in view of above
statements of ld.Counsels for the parties, the present
application for passing the stay order on application under
Order 41 Rule 5 CPC, moved by applicant/appellant, is
disposed off being not pressed, and the main appeal bearing
CIS No.CA/252/2021 is preponed to 08.5.2023 for main
arguments, which will be heard positively on that date. Reader
of this Court is directed to do needful in CI System. Both the
parties are directed to remain bound by their above statements.
Ld.Lower Court is directed not to execute the warrants of
possession till the next date of hearing i.e. 08.5.2023. It is made
clear that if due to any reason this appeal will not be heard on
08.5.2023 then DH/respondent is at liberty to get the warrants
executed and ld.lower Court is also directed to get the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125270
CR-5507-2024 [4]
execution proceeded, as per law, after the next date of hearing.
Intimation be sent to the concerned ld.lower Court forthwith by
the Ahlmad. Process in this regard may also be taken dasti as
requested.
Dt., 24.04.2023 (Manoj Kumar)
Addl., District Judge,
Ldh., UID No.PB0174"
5. The above said order is neither under challenge before this Court
nor is stated to be under challenge before any other Court. On 08.05.2023,
the case was adjourned to 09.05.2023 for arguments. On 09.05.2023,
however, instead of arguing the case, the counsel for the petitioner (appellant
therein) sought an adjournment and thus, accordingly, as per the order dated
24.04.2023, which had attained finality, the respondent/decree holder was
entitled to proceed with the execution. Zimni orders dated 08.05.2023 and
09.05.2023 are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"ORDER DATED 08.05.2023:-
Present: Sh.S.K Bawa, Advocate, counsel for appellant.
Sh.A.S Rai, Advocate, counsel for respondent.
At request of ld.Counsel for parties, case is now
adjourned to 09.5.2023 for main arguments, as per last order.
dt., 08.5.2023 (Manoj Kumar)
Addl., District Judge,
Ldh., UID No.PB0174
ORDER DATED 09.05.2023:-
Present: Sh.S.K Bawa, Advocate, counsel for appellant.
Sh.A.S Rai, Advocate, counsel for respondent.
At request of ld.Counsel for appellant, case is now
adjourned to 22.5.2023 for main arguments, which will be
heard positively on that date.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125270
CR-5507-2024 [5]
dt., 09.05.2023 (Manoj Kumar)
Addl., District Judge,
Ldh., UID No.PB0174"
6. Even on 22.05.2023, an adjournment was sought on behalf of
counsel for the appellant and accordingly, the case was adjourned to
27.07.2023 and it was clarified that the Executing Court was at liberty to
proceed further in the execution proceedings. The said orders dated
24.04.2023 and 22.05.2023 have neither been challenged before this Court
nor have been challenged before any other Court, as has been fairly stated by
the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since, no stay was operating thus, the
Executing Court vide impugned order dated 29.08.2024 had rejected the
objections filed by the judgment debtor to the effect that the warrant of
possession be not issued till the time the appeal is pending. In the said order,
reference was made to the earlier order passed by the First Appellate Court
which has been reproduced hereinabove and the Executing Court had
observed that there was no stay operating against the execution of the
judgment and decree dated 28.10.2021 and thus the execution proceedings
cannot be stayed. It was further observed that in case the appeal of the
petitioner is allowed then he has a right under Section 144 of CPC for
restoration. The said proceedings/orders are in accordance with law and does
not call for any interference and the present revision petition being meritless,
deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
23.09.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
5 of 5
