123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:22.01.2026 MANJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners Vs.

RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Advocate for the petitioners.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. ( Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to assail the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, SAS Nagar. Vide the said order, the learned Executing Court allowed the application filed by the decree- holders seeking permission to place on record the correct affidavit along with the requisite stamp paper in compliance with the order dated 07.03.2025, and to replace the earlier stamp paper.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to him prior to the disposal of the said application and that the same was allowed without issuing any notice to the petitioner, thereby resulting in a violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper-book carefully.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of being heard prior to its passing. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Lalman R. Sharma and others, 2011 (14) SCC 594, wherein the grievance was that the judgment had been passed by the High Court without granting any opportunity to the appellant, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., to file its reply. The Hon’ble Apex Court, finding a violation of the principles of natural justice, set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh adjudication after taking into consideration the reply of the appellant.

5. Further reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawan Chaubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2023 (16) SCC 698, wherein, despite the order of appointment having been passed in favour of the appellant, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the same did not disqualify the appellant from appearing and contesting the proceedings by demonstrating that the order of cancellation had been correctly passed against respondent No. 4. The emphasis of the Hon’ble Court was on the right of an affected party to be heard before any adverse order is passed.

6. Learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Giriraj Trading Company v. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Law Finder Doc Id No. 2524440, wherein the judgment of the High Court was set aside with the observation that the High Court is required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the affected party before passing any order having civil consequences.

7. On the strength of the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order, having been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.

8. A perusal of the record reveals that in the present case, the learned Executing Court had passed an order dated 07.03.2025, whereby the decree-holders were directed to place on record a fresh set of documents in compliance with the said order. In pursuance thereof, the decree-holders submitted a revised set of documents with the necessary amendments on

13.03.2025.

9. It is specifically recorded in the application that, inadvertently, the old affidavit of the decree-holder was annexed along with the newly submitted set of documents. The said affidavit had been executed by the attorney holder of the owner/transferor of the plot. In such an affidavit, the relevant facts regarding the executant of