##PAGE1##

CR-684-2026 Page 1 of 5

(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

131

CR-684-2026(O&M)

Date of decision: 29.01.2026

Gurmukh Singh (deceased) through his LR

...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

M/s Balraj Singh Pargat Singh & Another

...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Robin Singh Bhullar, Advocate

for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the

defendant/judgment debtor seeking setting aside of the order dated

07.01.2026 (Annexure P1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Ludhiana, whereby application filed by the petitioner for staying

proceedings in Execution Petition No.EXE-20269-2023, has been dismissed.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that against the ex parte judgment and decree dated 07.08.2023, the

petitioner had duly filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which is

pending. However, in the interregnum, the respondent-decree holder had

filed Execution Petition. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed the instant

application for staying the execution proceedings before the Executing

(cid:1)

1 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2026 19:30:53 :::

CR-684-2026 Page 2 of 5

(cid:1)

Court. It is submitted that the decree holder is deliberately vigorously

pursuing the execution proceedings and has appeared 11 times in the

execution case while the outcome of the application filed by the petitioner

under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which is now at the stage of evidence, is still

pending. It is accordingly submitted that in these circumstances, the

learned Civil Judge ought to have stayed the execution proceedings. In

support of his contentions, learned counsel relies upon judgment of this

Court in Dhani Ram v. M/s. Sai Stone Crusher, (Punjab and Haryana) : Law

Finder Doc Ida # 2796967.

3. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner. I have

heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in

the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

4. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: –

02.12.2020: A perusal of the file shows that the plaintiffs/respondents No.1

and 2 had filed Civil Suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.4,52,300/-.

21.9.2022: Perusal of record shows that in the Civil Suit service was duly

effected upon the petitioner in accordance with law vide Report of Refusal

dated 21.09.2022 received from the Process Server. Accordingly, vide order

dated 21.09.2022, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte as the

petitioner was deemed to be served in terms of Order 5 Rule 9 CPC.

(cid:1)

2 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2026 19:30:54 :::

CR-684-2026 Page 3 of 5

(cid:1)

7.8.2023: Subsequently, suit was decreed ex parte and vide judgment and

decree dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure P2) preliminary decree for recovery of

Rs.3,85,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum was passed.

31.10.2023: Thereafter, the plaintiff/decree-holder/respondent herein filed

Execution Petition on 31.10.2023.

10.7.2024: In the said execution proceedings also, the petitioner was

proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 10.07.2024.

27.3.2025: On 27.03.2025, warrants of attachment of the property of the

petitioner were issued for 01.05.2025.

31.5.2025: Accordingly, on 31.05.2025, the petitioner had preferred an

application (Annexure P3) under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside of the

ex parte judgment and decree dated 07.08.2023.

22.9.2025: Record further reveals that in the said application, the learned

Civil Judge vide order dated 22.09.2025 had firstly directed stay of the

execution proceedings in the following terms: -

“However, this Court keeping in view the apprehension which is

in the mind of decree holder whereby he suspects that JD may

prolong the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and to

mitigate such apprehension, it is hereby ordered that JD will

deposit 50% of the consolidated decretal amount in the Court on

or before the next date of hearing failing of which the execution

would not be stayed a