IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(116) CR No. 9727 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 23.12.2025

Bharti Devi and another

...Petitioners

Versus

Anita Devi and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present: Mr. Ravi Kumar Girdhwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

***

Amarinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Rewari, to decide the petitioners’ pending application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed in Civil Suit No. CS/1113/2025 titled Bharti Devi and others Vs. Anita

Devi and others, within a time-bound manner.

2. A perusal of the record reveals that respondent Anita Devi had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act against the Sub Divisional Education Officer and others. The said rent petition was allowed and the respondent–Sub Divisional Education Officer was directed to hand over vacant physical possession of the tenanted premises to the petitioner Anita Devi. Simultaneously, the present petitioners, namely Bharti Devi and another, instituted a civil suit for

declaration and permanent injunction against Anita Devi and others, which is presently pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Rewari.

3. During the pendency of the said civil suit, respondent Anita Devi initiated execution proceedings. In the execution application, the present petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC and also raised objections. The said objections were dismissed vide order dated

29.11.2025 and warrants of possession were issued.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 29.11.2025 deserves to be stayed, as the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is still pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. It is further prayed that the learned trial Court be directed to decide the said application expeditiously.

5. Heard.

6. In view of the limited nature of the relief sought and the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as the same would unnecessarily delay the proceedings and entail avoidable expenses.

7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the operation of the impugned order dated 29.11.2025 is hereby stayed. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the petitioners’ application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law.

8. The present civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms.

December 23, 2025 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

kanchan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No