Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Sunita – Appellant
Versus
Parveen – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to execution order based on procedural flaws. (Para 1) |
| 2. impugned order set aside for improper adherence to procedural law. (Para 3) |
| 3. final directive for reconsideration of pending application. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, challenging the order dated 06.09.2025 (Annexure P-20). By the said order, the objection petition filed by the petitioner in the execution proceedings was dismissed, and attachment of the petitioner’s salary was directed. The petitioner seeks to impugn the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned order, contending that it has been passed without due consideration of the facts and submissions raised in the objection petition, thereby necessitating interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
2.1. However, a perusal of the orders passed by the Executing Court, placed on record in the paper-book, clearly indicates that no such direction was issued by the Executing Court requiring the petitioner to furnish security, nor was any stay of execution subject to the furnishing of se
The court underscores the necessity of adhering to procedural laws regarding execution orders and salary attachment, emphasizing the importance of properly considering pending applications.
The court allowed the petitioner to pay the decretal amount in instalments, setting aside the attachment of salary, with a default clause for non-payment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
