Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash Chander Kapur And Another vs Monika Dalal on 27 November, 2025
Civil Revision No.8637-2025
2025 (O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
130
Civil Revision No.8637 of 2025 (O & M)
Date of decision ::-27.11.2025
Subhash Chander Kapur and another
.....Petitioners
Versus
Ms. Monika Dalal
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
CORAM:-
Present:- Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate with
Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate and
Ms. Avsi Malik, Advocate
for the petitioners.
NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed by the
petitioners/Decree Holders/Plaintiffs seeking directions to the learned
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurugram to decide the Execution Petition
No.49/2024 titled as "Subhash Chander Kapur and another vs.
Monikaa Dalal" expeditiously and further issue direction to the
respondent/tenant to pay admitted rent/mesne profit during her
unauthorized
authorized occupation of demised
demise premises.
It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners/Decree Holders/Plaintiffs
Holders/Plaintiffs that the petitioners had filed the
Civil Suit No.3237 dated 29.7.2022 titled as "Subhash Chander vs.
Monika Dalal" seeking possession of the suit property and mesne
profits. It is submitted that the respondent
respondent-defendant had put in
appearance before the
the learned trial Court in the civil suit, however,
1 of 6
Civil Revision No.8637-2025
had failed to file written statement, as such, her defence was struck
off. Thereafter, the respondent has approached this Court by way of
civil revision petition, in which one effective opportunity was gra
granted
to the respondent to file her written statement. Despite that the
respondent has failed to file her written statement in the civil suit. It
is further pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that vide
order dated 14.9.2023 (at page 42 of the paper book) the defence of
the respondent was again struck off by the learned trial Court in view
of the fact that the respondent had failed to pay the rent as required
under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. Thereafter, the suit was decreed vide
order dated 04.1.2024.
04.1. Accordingly, the petitioners had filed the
instant Execution Petition No.49 on dated 25.1.2024 (Annexure P-3).
Upon notice, the respondent/Judgment Debtor appeared and filed
objections under Order 21 CPC on dated 30.10.2024 (Annexure P
P-4).
It is submitted
bmitted that as per the zimni orders, thereafter the matter is
being adjourned repeatedly on one pretext or the other at request of
the Judgment Debtor. It is submitted that the Judgement Debtor is the
trespasser in the suit property. Moreover, the petit
petitioners have
received nothing by way of mesne profit from October 2022 itself.
Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Bhoj Raj Garg vs. Goyal Education and Welfare Society and
others passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(C)
No(s).19654/2022 decided on 18.11.2022 to submit that a clear
direction has been issued to the learned Executing Courts to dispose
of all the execution petitions within six months. It is submitted that
2 of 6
Civil Revision No.8637-2025
the petitioners are senior citizens and are unable to enjoy the suit
property despite having decree in their favour; whereas the respondent
is residing therein without payment of any rent in the capacity of
trespasser.
Heard.
The present petition is being disposed of without issuing
any notice to the respondent as that will only further delay the matter.
Reference can also be drawn from the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Periyammal (dead) through LRs
and others vs. V. Rajamani and another etc. passed in Civil Appeal
Nos.3640
Nos.3640-3642 of 2025, decided on 06.3.2025. The relevant paras of
which is being reproduced hereunder :-
:
"xxx xxx xxx
73. It is worthwhile to revisit the observations in
h (supra) wherein this Court has
Rahul S. Shah
provided guidelines and directions for conduct of
execution proceedings. The relevant portion of the
said judgment is reproduced below:
"42. All courts dealing with suits and
execution proceedings shall mandatorily
follow the below mentioned directions:
42.1. In suits relating to delivery of
possession, the court must examine
the parties to the suit under Order 10
in relation to third
third-party interest and
further exercise the power under
Order 11 Rule 14 asking parties to
disclose and produce documents,
upon oath, which are in possession of
the parties including declaration
pertaining to third
third-party interest in
such properties,
3 of 6
Civil Revision No.8637-2025
42.2. In appropriate cases, where the
possession is not in dispute and not a
question of fact for adjudicatio
adjudication
before the court, the court may
appoint Commissioner to assess the
accurate description and status of the
property.
42.3. After examination of parties
under Order 10 or production of
documents under Order II or receipt
of Commission report, the court mu must
add all necessary or proper parties to
the suit, so as to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings and also make such
joinder of cause of action in the same
suit.
42.4. Under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC, a
Court Receiver can be appointed to
monitor the status of the property in
question as custodia legis for proper
adjudication of the matter.
42.5. The court must, before passing
the decree, pertaining to delivery of
possession of a property ensure that
the decree is unambiguous so as to
not only contain clear descrip
description of
the property but also having regard
to the status of the property
property.
42.6. In a money suit, the court must
invariably resort to Order 21 Rule 11,
ensuring immediate execution of
decree for payment of money on oral
application.
42.7. In a suit for ppayment of money,
before settlement of issues, the
defendant may be required to disclose
his assets on oath, to the extent that
he is being made liable in a suit. The
court may further, at any stage, in
appropriate cases during the
pendency of suit, using ppowers under
Section 151 CPC, demand security to
ensure satisfaction of any decree.
4 of 6
Civil Revision No.8637-2025
42.8. The court exercising
jurisdiction under Section 47 or
under Order 21 CPC, must not issue
notice on an application of third
party claiming rights in a
mechanical manne
manner. Further, the
court should refrain from
entertaining any such application(s)
that has already been considered by
the court while adjudicating the suit
or which raises any such issue which
otherwise could have been raised
and determined during adjudicatio
adjudication
of suit if due diligence was exercised
by the applicant.
42.9. The court should allow taking of
evidence during the execution
proceedings only in exceptional and
rare cases where the question of fact
could not be decided by resorting to
any other expedi
expeditious method like
appointment of Commissioner or
calling for electronic materials
including photographs or video with
affidavits.
42.10. The court must in appropriate
cases where it finds the objection or
resistance or claim to be frivolous or
mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of
Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant
compensatory costs in accordance
with Section 35
35-A.
42.11. Under Section 60 CPC the
term "... in name of the judgment
judgment-
debtor or by another person in trust
for him or on his behalf" should be
read
ead liberally to incorporate any
other person from whom he may have
the ability to derive share, profit or
property.
42.12. The executing court must
dispose of the execution proceedings
within six months from the date of
filing, which may be extended only
by recording reasons in writing for
such delay.
5 of 6
Civil Revision No.8637-2025
42.13. The executing court may on
satisfaction of the fact that it is not
possible to execute the decree without
police assistance, direct the police
station concerned to provide police
assistance to such oofficials who are
working towards execution of the
decree. Further, in case an offence
against the public servant while
discharging his duties is brought to
the knowledge of the court, the same
must be dealt with stringently in
accordance with law.
42.14. The Judicial Academies must
prepare manuals and ensure
continuous training through
appropriate mediums to the court
personnel/staff executing the
warrants, carrying out attachment
and sale and any other official duties
for executing orders issued by the
executing
ecuting courts."
(Emphasis supplied)"
Keeping in view the aforesaid categoric judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Periyammal's case (supra) and Bhoj Raj
's case (supra) the present petition is disposed of with a
Garg's
direction to the learned Executing Court to decide the Execution
Petition No.49/2024 titled as "Subhash Chander Kapur and Ors. vs.
Monika Dalal" within two months from today.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.
November 27, 2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA )
Vijay Asija JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
6 of 6
