120

CR-2560-2022

PIRTHIPAL SINGH @ PRITHIPAL SINGH

V/S

SATISH KUMAR

Present:

Mr.Sunny K. Singla, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.Liaqat Ali, Advocate

for the respondent.

*****

Challenge in the present revison petition is to the order dated

19.05.2022 (Annexure P-7) and 19.10.2021 (Annexure P-6), passed by learned

Civil Judge (Junior Division), whereby, an application for staying the execution

proceedings, till the decision of application under Order 9 Rule 7 and 13 CPC

read with Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed.

As culled out from the paper book, initially the suit for recovery of

Rs.13,32,000/- was filed and the same was decreed vide judgment and decree

dated 24.01.2017, which was decreed ex-parte. The principal amount to be

recovered was Rs.12 lakh. Thereupon, execution petition was filed for recovery

of the aforesaid decretal amount. However, even the petitioner had filed an

application under Order 9 Rule 7 and 13 CPC, which is pending adjudication.

During the pendency of the application under Order 9 Rule 7 and

13 CPC, an application for stay of the execution proceedings was filed, which

has been dismissed by the Court concerned.

From the grounds of petition, it is evident that the issues have been

framed in the application under Order 9 Rule 7 and 13 CPC and now the case is

stated to be fixed for 10.11.2022.

However, during the course of arguments today, it has been agreed

between the counsel for the parties that the purpose would be fulfilled, if

time bound direction qua the decision of application under Order 9 Rule 7 and

13 CPC is given. At the same time, learned counsel for the respondent submits

VINEET GULATI

2022.09.15 08:54

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

Chandigarh

CR-2560-2022

-2-

that to establish bonafides, some part of the decretal amount should be

deposited by the petitioner, which was readily accepted by learned counsel for

the petitioner.

Considering the same, the petitioner, who was defendant before the

learned lower Court, is hereby directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, out of

the decretal amount, before the Court concerned, within a period of 10 days

from today. However, the said amount shall not be released to the

respondent/plaintiff, till disposal of the application under Order 9 Rule 7 and 13

CPC. The said amount, if so deposited, shall be invested in the form of FDR, in

some nationalised bank by the Court concerned and further, recital be made in

the FDR, with regard to the disbursement of the same, only by the order of the

concerned Court.

In view of the aforesaid, the Court concerned, where the application

under Order 9 Rule 7 and 13 CPC is pending, is hereby requested to grant two

opportunities each, with a gap of one month each, to the petitioner as well as to

the respondent, to lead evidence, vis-a-vis, application under Order 9 Rule 7 and

13 CPC. If any witness is to be summoned that shall be at the responsibility of

the parties concerned and thereafter, the application be decided expeditiously by

the Court.

In view of the aforesaid terms, the sale warrant issued by the

Executing Court, shall remain in abeyance, till the decision of the application

under Order 9 Rule 7 and 13 CPC.

Accordingly, the instant revision petition stands disposed of.

(ARCHANA PURI)

September 14, 2022

JUDGE

Vgulati

VINEET GULATI

2022.09.15 08:54

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

Chandigarh