1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:09.02.2026 Gurdeep Singh …Petitioner Versus Gurmukh Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate for petitioner.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner-defendant is aggrieved by impugned order dated

08.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Patiala vide which his application for staying the execution proceedings was dismissed.

2. Admittedly, suit of respondent-plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Patiala holding respondent-plaintiff entitled to relief of recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization. Subsequent thereto, execution petition was filed and notices were received by petitioner-defendant. After coming to know about the execution petition, petitioner-defendant moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC (Annexure P-3) before the Executing Court for setting aside ex parte proceedings/order as well as ex parte judgment and decree dated 06.09.2023, which is stated to be pending.

It is asserted that though in execution proceedings, respondent-decree holder is appearing, however, in abovesaid application, respondent-decree holder is not appearing.

3. On one hand, application Order IX Rule 13, CPC is not being decided and on the other hand, Executing Court is proceeding with the recovery of decretal amount.

4. As per judgment and decree dated 06.09.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Patiala, petitioner-defendant was stated to have been duly served by way of Munadi and affixation of notices. It has also been noted in paragraph No.3 of judgment and decree dated 06.09.2003 that petitioner-defendant was duly served through ordinary process, but has failed to appear.

5. Prima facie, only oral assertions have been made by petitioner- defendant claiming that he was not duly served, whereas orders passed by Court of First Instance are against his oral assertions.

6. Therefore, mere pendency of application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC is not sufficient to stay the execution proceedings. However, to balance equity between the parties, it is ordered that in case petitioner- defendant deposits Rs.5,00,000/- in FDR with the Executing Court, no coercive steps shall be taken against him and said FDR be paid to the party expeditiously by fixing both execution petition as well as abovesaid application on the same day.

7. Present revision petition is accordingly disposed of.

(PARMOD GOYAL)

JUDGE

09.02.2026 Sunil Chander