Jasbir Singh v. Ajit and Others

IN T

Jasbir Singh Ajit and Others

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

MANDEEP PA

1.

holder assailing (Junior Division whereby the ap petition was no obtaining the rep Brief Facts

2.

filed a suit for debtors. The sa whereby the sh passed. The ma mode of partitio

3.

CPC for setting THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

De

VERSUS

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for th -.- ANNU J. e present civil revision has been g the order dated 04.08.2025 p n), Gurugram (hereinafter refer pplication filed by the petitione ot decided finally but the matter port of the Ahlmad regarding the e material facts are not in disput possession by way of partition aid suit was decreed by judgm hares of the parties were specif atter was thereafter adjourned to on. The Halqa Girdawar was app e judgment debtors moved an a g aside the decree dated 30.08.2

JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-6175-2025 (O&M) cided on :- 08.09.2025

....Petitioner ....Respondents EEP PANNU the petitioner. n preferred by the petitioner/dec passed by the learned Civil Jud rred to as, 'the Executing Cour er for restoration of his execut r was adjourned to 03.11.2025 e status of the execution petition te. The petitioner/decree holder h n against the respondents/judgm ment and decree dated 30.08.20 fied and a preliminary decree w o 04.10.2022 for preparation of ointed as Local Commissioner. application under Order IX Rule 2022 and also filed an applicat

- cree dge rt'), . had ment 022, was e 13

under Order XX dismissed. War

22.02.2024. Obj also dismissed.

4.

Vid Girdawar to vis holder and also adjourned to 29

5.

Du settlement was settlement. On they would deliv would be liable decree. The pe petition was con

6.

Ad delivered till 01

04.08.2025 see immediate execu dated 04.08.202 Ahlmad and sum Submissions of

7.

Lea debtors had fail to have straighta XI Rule 29 CPC for stay of the rrants of possession were issue jections to the mode of partition de order dated 11.07.2024, the E it the spot with relevant records directed the SHO to provide po .07.2024 for report. uring this period, a Panchayat w arrived at. However, the judgm

29.07.2024, the judgment debto ver possession as per the decree e to pay ₹20,00,000/- to the pe etitioner also made his stateme nsigned to the record room with l dmittedly, the decree has not be

1.08.2025. The decree holder, th king restoration of the execut ution of the decree, the Executin 25, adjourning the case to 03.11.2 mmoning the main file. f learned counsel for the petitio arned counsel for the petitioner ed to deliver possession by 01.0 away restored the execution and

execution. Both applications w ed on 13.02.2024 for delivery filed by the judgment debtors w Executing Court directed the Ha to deliver possession to the dec lice aid if required. The matter w was convened on 22.07.2024 an ment debtors backed out from ors made a statement in Court t within one year, failing which th etitioner, treating it as part of ent. On that basis, the execut liberty to restore in case of defau een complied with, nor possess herefore, filed an application da tion petition. Instead of direct ng Court passed the impugned or 2025 for obtaining the report of oner contended that once the judgm

08.2025, the Executing Court ou issued warrants of possession, w

- were on were alqa cree was nd a that hey ult. sion ated ting rder ment ught

police aid if nec the impugned or case after three proceedings to t Findings

8.

Hav this Court finds

(i) fav dism

(ii)

¶29rest

(iii) rest del

(iv) and

9.

So finds no illegal consigned to th entitled to verify

10.

adjournment of cessary, as per the directions ea rder, by merely calling for the r months, has the effect of unne the prejudice of the decree holde ving heard learned counsel and as under: It is not in dispute that the d vour of the petitioner and has at judgment debtors for setting missed. The execution petition had bee

07.2024, based on the stateme tore in case of non-compliance. ) The decree holder filed the toration on the ground that th liver possession by 01.08.2025. ) The Executing Court directed d the case be listed on 03.11.202 far as the calling of the Ahlma lity. It is a routine and necessa he record room and restoration y the status of the record before p e grievance of the petitioner is nearly three months. In this rega

arlier recorded. It is submitted t report of the Ahlmad and fixing ecessarily prolonging the execut r. d having gone through the reco decree dated 30.08.2022 stands ttained finality, the applications g aside the decree having b en consigned to the record room ents of the parties, with liberty e application dated 04.08.2025 he judgment debtors had failed d that the Ahlmad's report be cal

¶5ad's report is concerned, this Co ary step whenever a file has b is sought. The Executing Cour proceeding further. essentially with regard to the lo ard, it is sufficient to observe tha

- that ord, s in s of een m on y to d to lled ourt een rt is ong

the petitioner/de him to move an date. The Exec empowered to p

11.

the ground that Ahlmad has bee Conclusion

12.

In material irregula The revision pet

13.

It i liberty to mov preponement of accordance with expeditious enfo

14.

Pen

September 08, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe ecree holder apprehends delay o n application before the Execut cuting Court, on being satisfie prepone the matter and issue appr e impugned order dated 04.08.2 t a longer adjournment has bee en called. No perversity or jurisd view of the above discussion, arity in the order dated 04.08.20 tition is devoid of merit and is ac is, however, clarified that the p ve an appropriate application f the date, and the Executing C h law, keeping in mind that ex orcement of decrees. nding application(s), if any, also 2025

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

or obstruction, it is always open ting Court for preponement of ed about urgency, would be fu ropriate directions. 2025 cannot be set aside merely en given or that the report of dictional error is made out. , this Court finds no illegality 025 passed by the Executing Co ccordingly dismissed. petitioner/decree holder shall be before the Executing Court ourt shall consider such request xecution proceedings are to ens stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

- n to ully y on y or urt. e at t in