IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (114)

Date of decision: 28.11.2025 Gurmail Singh ……Petitioner Versus Nachhattar Singh (deceased) through his LRs ……Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present: Mr. S.S. Maini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot (Annexure P-8), whereby the application seeking permission to file objections in the execution proceedings, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking protection of his possession over a residential house situated in Village Panj Grain Kalan, Tehsil Kotakpura, District Faridkot. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot on 10.08.2023, while the counter-claim of the respondent was allowed, directing the petitioner to hand over possession to the respondent. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Faridkot, which is still pending. Meanwhile, the respondent initiated execution proceedings, and warrants of possession were issued on 22.03.2024. The petitioner’s application for recalling of the warrants was dismissed on 04.10.2024 (Annexure P-6). Thereafter, his application seeking permission to file objections in the execution proceedings was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.10.2025. During the pendency of execution, decree-holder Nachhattar Singh died and his legal heirs were impleaded. Aggrieved with the order dated 13.10.2025, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the right of a judgment-debtor to file objections in execution proceedings is a substantive right protected under Section 47 CPC, which cannot be denied on technical grounds such as non-filing of objections during an earlier adjournment. Counsel submits that the objections go to the root of the matter and challenge the executability of the decree itself; denial of an opportunity to raise such objections results in grave prejudice and violation of audi alteram partem. It is further argued that the earlier application for recalling of warrants was dismissed only because objections had not been filed, and now even permission to file objections has been refused, thereby causing great prejudice to the petitioner.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.

5. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as it would only delay the proceedings and cause unnecessary expenditure to the respondent. 6. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, this Court finds that the learned Executing Court has committed material irregularity in dismissing the petitioner’s application. The provisions of Section 47 and Order XXI CPC embody a fundamental statutory safeguard ensuring that a judgment-debtor is not dispossessed or subjected to execution without being afforded a fair opportunity to raise all legally tenable grounds. The objections sought to be raised by the petitioner are not frivolous; they pertain to substantial issues affecting the executability and correctness of the decree, and denial of such opportunity would result in grave prejudice to the rights of the petitioner.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and without commenting upon the merits of the case, and further considering that valuable rights of the petitioner are involved in the present matter, the impugned order dated 13.10.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, is hereby set aside. Since the impugned order itself has bee