IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-217-2026 Date of decision: 21.01.2026 Shamshad Ahmed ...Pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner Versus Sagir Hussain and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Himanshu Puri, Advocate for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla, whereby his applica(cid:28)on seeking stay of the execu(cid:28)on proceedings (cid:28)ll the decision of his applica(cid:28)on under Order IX Rules 7 and

13 CPC read with Sec(cid:28)on 151 CPC has been dismissed.

2. A perusal of the record reveals that respondent No.1 had filed a pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on under Sec(cid:28)on 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restric(cid:28)on Act, 1949, seeking evic(cid:28)on of the tenants, namely the present pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner and proforma respondents. The tenants were duly served in the evic(cid:28)on pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on, on 11.12.2024; however, they failed to appear and were consequently proceeded against ex parte. The ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on was allowed vide ex parte order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-1).

3. For execu(cid:28)on of the ejectment order, respondent No.1 filed execu(cid:28)on proceedings. During pendency thereof, the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner moved an applica(cid:28)on under Order IX Rules 7 and 13 CPC for se@ng aside the order dated 11.12.2024, whereby he was proceeded ex parte, as well as the ex parte ejectment order dated 27.05.2025. Alongside, he filed an applica(cid:28)on before the Execu(cid:28)ng Court seeking stay of the execu(cid:28)on proceedings (cid:28)ll disposal of the said applica(cid:28)on, which prayer has been declined by the learned Execu(cid:28)ng Court by way of the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner contends that once an applica(cid:28)on under Order IX Rules 7 and 13 CPC is pending considera(cid:28)on, the Execu(cid:28)ng Court ought to stay its hands and defer the execu(cid:28)on proceedings. Reliance has been placed upon Davinder Pal Singh and another Vs. Narinder Pal Singh and others, 2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 194 and Sanjay Sharma Vs. Raj Kumar, 2019 (2) Law Herald 1329.

5. This Court has considered the submissions and examined the record.

6. It is evident that the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner was duly served in the evic(cid:28)on proceedings and yet chose not to appear, resul(cid:28)ng in his being proceeded ex parte. Even thereaBer, when execu(cid:28)on proceedings were ini(cid:28)ated, the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner was again served but failed to appear, as specifically no(cid:28)ced by the Execu(cid:28)ng Court in the impugned order dated 23.12.2025.

7. It is well seCled that mere filing or pendency of an applica(cid:28)on under Order IX Rule 13 CPC does not, by itself, operate as a stay of execu(cid:28)on of the decree. An ex parte decree remains executable unless it is set aside in accordance with law and that pendency of proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC does not curtail the jurisdic(cid:28)on of the Execu(cid:28)ng Court. Mere filing of an applica(cid:28)on for se@ng aside an ex parte decree does not suspend the opera(cid:28)on of the decree and the decree-holder is en(cid:28)tled to execute the same unless stayed by a competent court.

9. In the present case, no stay of execu(cid:28)on has been granted by the Court seized of the applica(cid:28)on under Order IX Rules 7 and 13 CPC. In such circumstances, the Execu(cid:28)ng Court was duty-bound to proceed with execu(cid:28)on and cannot be faulted for declining the prayer for stay.

10. Further, the conduct of the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner does not warrant exercise of discre(cid:28)onary relief. He failed to contest the evic(cid:28)on pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on despite due service; allowed the ejectment order to be passed ex parte; again remained absent in the execu(cid:28)on proceedings despite service; and only thereaBer sou