JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. 

CM-564-CII-2026

Prayer in the present application preferred under Section 151 CPC is for placing on record additional documents as Annexures P-7 to P-11.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Additional documents are taken on record as Annexures P-7 to P-11.

Registry to tag the said documents at appropriate place in the case file.

CR-214- 2026 (O&M)

1. The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is a classic example of misuse and abuse of the legal process by an unscrupulous tenant.

2. The petitioners, who are the legal representatives of one Pt. Jot Ram, assail the order dated 05.01.2026, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sirsa, vide which fresh warrants of possession have been ordered to be issued for delivery of possession of the demised premises.

3. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that on 19.01.1991, respondent No.1 (Anil Kumar Goyal) instituted an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, ‘the Rent Act’), seeking eviction of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and proforma respondents No.2 to 12 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the tenants’) from two shops and one Nohra (fully described in the eviction petition), situated at Hissaria Gate, Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the demised premises’). The said eviction petition was allowed on 19.05.1998 by the Court of Rent Controller, Sirsa. Appeal against the said decision was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, CR- 3935-1999 was filed, which too was dismissed by a coordinate Bench on 24.04.2014 (Annexure P-1). The order of eviction has, therefore, concededly attained finality.

4. The case set up by the tenants is that their predecessor-in- interest had purchased land measuring 81 sq. yard, which is a part of khasra No.99/3 of which he was already in possession. Conveyance Deed dated 15.04.2005 (Annexure P-2) was executed, as a result of which, he became the legal owner of the said land. It is the categoric case of the petitioners/tenants in the present petition that the said property was different from the demised premises.

5. It has further been averred that an execution application had been instituted by the respondent-landlord in 2014. However, vide order dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P-3), the same was dismissed for non- compliance. The said order was assailed by way of CR-9610-2025 (Annexure P-4), which was disposed of directing the executing Court to decide the execution petition within a period of one month.

6. It is the case of the petitioners/tenants that on receipt of order dated 19.12.2025, the executing Court passed the order dated 05.01.2026, ordering issuance of fresh warrants of possession and a direction to the Bailiff of the Court for delivery of possession of the demised premises.

7. It is submitted that the said order stands executed despite an order of status quo dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure P-6) having been passed by a competent Court in a civil suit (Annexure P-9) instituted by the tenants.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. Mr. Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, with all the vehemence at his command, submits that the impugned order is not sustainable. He submits that once a status quo order was operating, the said order could not have been passed. Learned counsel has referred to various documents on record and has made an attempt to convince the Court that in the garb of taking possession of the property which was the subject matter of the eviction petition, the property in possession of the tenants, which is the subject matter of the suit, is being attempting to be taken.

10. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate, who is present in Court, though notice of motion has not been issued, and has been permitted to make submissions in the interest of justice, has, with equal vehemence, opposed t