[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh vs Balraj on 20 March, 2026
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
CM No.5752-CII of 2026 in/and
CR No.9566 of 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
115
CM No.5752-CII of 2026 in/and
Civil Revision No.9566 of 2025
Date of decision: March 20th, 2026
Suresh Kumar
.....Petitioner
Versus
Balraj Singh
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate
for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. R.K. Saini and Mr. Ankit Saini, Advocates
for the respondent.
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
CM No.5752-CII of 2026
This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for revival
of the petition.
For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported
by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and order dated
12.02.2026 is recalled and the main case is restored to its original number
and is taken on Board today itself.
This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.12.2025
passed by Additional District Judge, Hisar, whereby the stay application has
been dismissed, although the main appeal is stated to be pending for hearing.
2. On 12.01.2026, this Court was pleased to pass the following
CM No.5752-CII of 2026 in/and
order:
"Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Inter alia contends that in the present case, vide
judgment dated 03.05.2023, the suit filed by the respondent
for possession was decreed. It is submitted that the petitioner
had filed an appeal against the said judgment within the
period of limitation along with application for stay and in the
appeal as well as in the application for stay, notice was
issued. It is submitted that the respondent had filed the
execution proceedings and when the warrants of possession
had been issued and the application for stay/main appeal had
not been decided, the petitioner had filed CR-8310-2025 and
the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated
17.11.2025, was pleased to direct the First Appellate Court
to take up the application for stay and in the meantime, the
Executing Court was directed to keep the execution of
warrants of possession in abeyance. It is further submitted
that the application for stay has been dismissed whereas the
main appeal has been ordered to be heard on 02.02.2026. It
is argued that in case the possession is taken from the
petitioner during the pendency of the first appeal then
irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner. It is
further submitted that the petitioner would be ready to argue
the case on 02.02.2026 or on any other date which the First
Appellate Court directs the petitioner/his counsel to argue
the case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also
ready to compensate the respondent for the inconvenience
caused to the respondent.
Notice of motion for 29.01.2026.
To be taken up in the urgent list.
Till the next date of hearing, the Executing
Court is directed to give the date beyond the date fixed by
this Court. The petitioner would bring an amount of
CM No.5752-CII of 2026 in/and
Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses on the next date of hearing
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to serve the
respondent through dasti process as well as through his
counsel appearing before the First Appellate
Court/Executing Court.
12.01.2026"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has handed over an amount of ₹10,000/- to the counsel for the
respondent, which fact has been reaffirmed by the counsel for the
respondent. It is submitted that the main appeal is now pending for
10.04.2026 and the petitioner would be ready to argue the first appeal before
the First Appellate Court on the said date or any other date which the First
Appellate Court directs the petitioner and his counsel to argue. It is
submitted that till the time the said appeal is decided, the Executing Court be
directed to adjourn the execution proceedings or liberty be granted to
dispose of the execution with liberty to the parties to file afresh or revive the
said execution in accordance with the order passed by the First Appellate
Court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the grant
of the interim order should not be construed as an expression on the merits
of the case and the First Appellate Court be directed to decide the case
expeditiously and independently after hearing the counsel for the respondent
also.
5. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and the
fair stand taken by the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the
CM No.5752-CII of 2026 in/and
respondent, the impugned order is partly set aside and the revision petition is
disposed of with the following observations/directions:
(i) The counsel for both the parties appearing before the
First Appellate Court would be ready to argue the matter, as
undertaken before this Court on 10.04.2026 or any other date
which the First Appellate Court fixes for the said purpose.
The First Appellate Court is requested to decide the first appeal
which is pending since 2023 as expeditiously as possible.
(ii) Till the time the first appeal is decided, the execution
proceedings would be stayed. The grant of the said interim
order would not be construed as an expression on the merits of
the case and the First Appellate Court would decide the appeal
independently after hearing both the parties. It would also be
open to both the parties to move a joint application before the
Executing Court to dispose of the execution application at this
stage granting liberty to both/either of the parties to revive the
same after the decision of the First Appellate Court.
(iii) In case the counsel for the petitioner is not ready to argue the
matter on 10.04.2026 or any date which the First Appellate
Court gives, then, it would be open to the respondent to move
an application for revival of the present revision petition.
March 20th, 2026 (VIKAS BAHL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
