IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 30.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2026 Date of Uploading : 02.02.2026 Manvirinder Singh ......Petitioner Vs.

Manpartap Singh and others ......Respondents Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Mr. M.S.Khaira, Senior Advocate, (through VC) with Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

None for respondent No.1.

Mr. R.M.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2 and 3.

****

S UDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the orders of even date dated 24.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, in Execution No.33 of 2014. Further prayer is that directions be issued to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala/Executing Court to decide the execution application within time bound manner, as it is pending since 2014.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that execution application was filed in the year 2014 and till date, the same is not decided. He further contends that the judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner was passed on 14.10.2013 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, and till date, he is not able to get the fruits of the said judgment and decree. He, therefore, prays that the orders of even date dated 24.02.2023 be set aside. And directions be issued to the Executing Court to decide the executing application within a time bound period.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that orders of even date dated 24.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala/Executing Court has rightly been passed. He, therefore, prays that the present revision petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case file with their able assistance.

5. A perusal of the file shows that the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, is in favour of the petitioner and he filed the execution application in the year 2014 and till date, almost 11 years have passed and he is not able to enjoy the fruits of the said judgment and decree passed in his favour.

6. This Court in CM-4553-CII-2025 in CR-2181-2023 titled as Kanwar Naresh Singh Sodhi Vs. State of Punjab and others, after relying upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others, (2021) 6 SCC 418, has held that the execution should be decided within a period of six months. In contrast thereto, in the present case, the execution application has remained pending for nearly eleven years since its institution, without any final adjudication by the Executing Court. Such an inordinate delay defeats the mandate of law and renders the decree illusory, thereby frustrating the very administration of justice

7. In view of the same, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala/Executing Court to decide the Execution Application No.33 of 2014 titled as ‘Manvirinder Singh Vs. Manpartap Singh’ filed by the petitioner in a time bound manner i.e. within a period of three months from today.

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

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

JUDGE

31.01.2026 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No