IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

373 Civil Revision No.5068 of 2025 Date of decision: November 17^th, 2025 Neelam Rani @ Neelam Singla ...Petitioner Versus Rajesh Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Mr. Ajay Kumar and Ms. Manisha Rani, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Pankaj Gautam, Advocate for the respondents.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 07.05.2025, by the decree holder (petitioner), vide which the Executing Court instead of summarily dismissing the objections filed by the judgment debtors/respondents, has framed issues and has adjourned the case for evidence of the judgment debtors, thus, permitting the judgment debtors to endlessly hold on to the unauthorised possession of the property in question even after the eviction order passed against the respondents/judgment debtors had become final.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

2. Present petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, for eviction of the respondents from a single storey shop situated on Somnath Mandir Road, Opposite New Subzi Mandi, Jind and which was bounded as under:

East: 7’-6” Geeta Ice Factory;

West: 7’-6” Somnath Mandir Road;

North: 19’ Shop of Krishan Mohan S/o Sh. Pawan”.

The said petition was filed against present respondents/judgment debtors, who were tenants in the said property.

3. On 17.02.2016, the said petition was disposed of in terms of the compromise and the present respondents were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the present petitioners on ₹

31.12.2020 and were also directed to pay rent at the rate of 4,125/- per month plus house tax against receipt. It was further observed that in case the respondents failed to give the vacant possession of the suit premises, then, the petitioner shall be entitled to get possession by way of execution.

The order dated 17.02.2016 is reproduced hereinbelow:

“Present: Shri S.K. Garg, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri P.K. Mittal, Advocate for respondents.

The learned counsel for parties submitted that they have reached at compromise Ex. C1 and compromise deed is placed on record. They urged that the present petition may be disposed off in terms of compromise Ex. C1. Record perused. The compromise deed duly signed by the parties and their counsels is placed on record and the statements of parties regarding compromise has already been recorded wherein they have accepted the compromise deed as correct and requested to dispose of the instant petition in terms of compromise deed. In given circumstances, the eviction petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the petitioner on 31.12.2020. The respondent shall continue to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 4,125/- per month plus house tax against receipt. The respondent shall also regularly pay the electricity charges. He will not deliver the actual possession of the suit premises to any person other than the petitioner. In case the respondent fails to deliver the vacant possession of the suit shop to the petitioner in the manner referred above, the petitioner shall be entitled to get possession by way of execution. File be consigned to the record room.

(Rajesh Gupta)

RC, Jind. 17.2.2016.”

4. It is not disputed before this Court that the said order has attained finality as no appeal has been filed against the same nor any application for setting aside the said order dated 17.02.2016 has been filed. Since the respondents did not hand over the possession, thus, the petitioner filed an execution application and in the execution application on

01.08.2024, the Executing Court was pleased to pass the following order:

“Present: Sh. Naveen Bidhan, Advocate for DH.

Sh. N.K. Gautam, Advocate for Jds.

Today the matter has come up for filing objections by Jds. Objections has not been filed by the Jds. Learned counsel f