IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.02.2026 Harjinder Kaur ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Satinderjit Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. G.S.Nagra, Advocate and Mr. K.S.Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant No.2/judgment debtor No.2 against the order dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) (wrongly written as 17-01-2026 in headnote and prayer); whereby application filed by the petitioner before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajnala for stay of execution proceedings during the pendency of the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: - 27.08.2015: The plaintiff/respondent No.2 had filed a Civil Suit No. 542 of 2015 for possession on dated 27.08.2015 against the petitioner/defendant No.2, and respondents No.1 and 3/defendants No.1 and 3 respectively.

25.03.2019: Vide judgment and decree dated 25.03.2019 (Annexure P- 3), suit of the plaintiff was decreed exparte against defendants No.2 to 4. 06.12.2025: Subsequently, petitioner had filed an application dated 06.12.2025 (Annexure P-4) under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree dated

25.03.2019.

12.12.2025: The petitioner also filed an application dated 12.12.2025 (Annexure P-5) for staying the execution proceedings filed in EXE/75/2019 during the pendency of the application under Order 9 Rule

13 CPC.

27.01.2025: Vide the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure P-1), said application of the petitioner for staying the execution proceedings has been dismissed.

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not served in accordance with law before the Civil Court. As such, the decree dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Civil Court is not maintainable. It is submitted that when the petitioner came to know about the said decree, she filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, which is still pending. However, during the pendency of the said application, warrants of possession issued by the Executing Court vide order dated 19.01.2026 is not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per judgment and decree dated 25.3.2019 passed by Id. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajnala, the possession was returned back to the parties. Thereafter, Satinderjit Singh/respondent no. 1 moved an application for execution of decree for getting the possession from the respondent no. 3 Jodhbir Singh. The petitioner had sold the land to Jodhbir Singh. When the petitioner came to know about the decree dated 25.3.2019, an application was filed under order 9 rule 13 CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25.3.2019 being exparte. The petitioner has submitted in application that the notice was not served by the court on her address as her address was wrongly given.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit was filed by Madanjit Singh/respondent no.2 challenging the sale deed dated 26.3.2003 vide which Satinderjit Singh sold the land to petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner had further sold land to defendant no. 3 on 18.11.2010. Satinderjit Singh had claimed himself as decree holder. But as per judgment and decree dated 25.3.2019, he is defendant no. 1 and he has no locus standi to file execution proceeding and even for making application under Order 151 CPC for claiming possession of 9K-11 marla. It is also submitted that until and unless judgment and decree is passed in favour of Satinderjit Singh/respondent only then he can file the execution application and not otherwise.

6. It is accordingly prayed that the present Revision Petition be allowed; and the impugned order be set a side.

7. No