IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (123)

Date of Decision:-22.01.2026 Hakam Singh ……Petitioner Versus Kanta Devi (Since Deceased) through her LRs and Others ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present: Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, 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, seeking setting aside of the impugned orders dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure P-9) and 03.01.2026 (Annexure P-10), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guhla, District Kaithal, whereby conditional warrants against the petitioner have been issued.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents/plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 29.03.2016 and the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 09.12.2024. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal. He further submits that there was a delay of 104 days in filing the appeal, for which the petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay.

3. It is submitted that vide order dated 21.08.2025, the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:

“Impugned order reveals that the petitioner’s appeal has not yet been entertained. Instead, there is an application pending for condonation of 104 days delay in filing the appeal. Since this application for condonation of delay is still awaiting adjudication, the appeal itself has not been admitted or taken on record. Consequently, the stay application cannot be properly considered or granted by the First Appellate Court at this stage. Therefore, deciding the stay application on its merits due to the conduct of the appellant is legally unsound. In view of this, the impugned order is set aside. The learned First Appellate Court is directed to expeditiously decide the application for condonation of delay first and, only if the appeal is admitted, then to proceed to consider the application for staying the operation of the impugned judgment and decree on its merits.”

4. Learned counsel submits that despite the above directions issued by this Court, the Executing Court proceeded with the execution petition and issued conditional warrants of arrest against the petitioner. It is argued that in view of the valuable rights of the petitioner being involved, and the fact that the appellate proceedings are pending in compliance with the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench, the impugned orders are unsustainable.

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

6. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as the same is likely to delay the proceedings and entail unnecessary expense.

7. In light of the above, and keeping in view the fact that specific directions already stand issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, as well as the valuable rights of the petitioner involved, the impugned orders dated 09.12.2025 and 03.01.2026 are hereby stayed. The First Appellate Court is directed to decide the applications expeditiously, strictly in accordance with the directions issued by this Court vide order dated

21.08.2025.

8. The present civil revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

9. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guhla, District Kaithal, as well as to the First Appellate Court, Kaithal, for strict compliance.

10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

JUDGE

22.01.2026 Shubham Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No