JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. Invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has instituted the present civil revision petition to challenge the order dated 02.01.2026 (Annexure P-19) passed by the learned Executing Court. By the impugned order, the Executing Court has dismissed the objections preferred by the petitioner, thereby necessitating the present invocation of this Court’s corrective and supervisory powers to rectify the manifest error and jurisdictional infirmities apparent on the face of the record.

2. Stepping into the factual matrix giving rise to the present proceedings, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner is a tenant in the demised premises, while the respondent/landlord initiated ejectment proceedings against him on the ground of non-payment of rent. During the course of those proceedings, the learned Rent Controller provisionally assessed the arrears of rent at Rs. 6,15,250/- and fixed a specific date for its deposit. However, on the said date, the Bar Association, Amritsar, was observing a no-work call due to the demise of one of its members, resulting in the petitioner’s inability to appear and tender the assessed rent. Consequent thereto, the learned Rent Controller proceeded to pass the ejectment order dated 11.03.2024.

2.2. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court in revision, wherein the proceedings were initially stayed vide order dated 07.11.2025; however, upon learning that no appeal had been preferred against the judgment dated 11.03.2024, the stay was vacated on the very same day. Subsequently, the petitioner instituted the statutory appeal along with applications seeking condonation of delay under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act and for stay of execution of the impugned ejectment order. Meanwhile, the respondent/landlord initiated execution proceedings, prompting the petitioner to file objections therein and to seek a stay of execution pending adjudication of the appeal.

3. Culminating the chain of events, the learned Civil Judge proceeded to dismiss the petitioner’s objection petition and consequently issued ‘Warrants of Possession’ in favour of the respondent/landlord. It is this impugned order that has constrained the petitioner to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court through the present revision petition, seeking correction of the manifest irregularities and jurisdictional errors alleged to have tainted the order under challenge.

4. Having bestowed my thoughtful consideration upon the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and having meticulously examined the entire paper-book, I proceed to evaluate the matter on its substantive merits.

5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the respondent/landlord is deliberately protracting the adjudication of the application for condonation of delay filed along with the appeal, and in the interregnum has taken undue advantage of such delay to secure the issuance of ‘Warrants of Possession’. It is urged that, should the warrants be executed, the petitioner’s statutory appeal would stand rendered illusory and infructuous. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is fully prepared to furnish an appropriate bank guarantee to secure compliance with the judgment and to ensure payment of the arrears of rent.

5.1. A perusal of the record reveals that when the rent appeal was initially instituted, the respondent/petitioner entered appearance on caveat and vigorously opposed the grant of interim stay, asserting that the application under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must first be decided. The learned Appellate Court accepted this contention and directed the filing of a reply to the application. However, despite opportunities afforded, no reply was filed by the respondent on 28.11.2025; instead, an adjournment was sought. The same conduct was repeated on 05.01.2026, when aga