IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (130)

Date of Decision:-17.02.2026 PARAMJEET KUMAR AND ANOTHER … Petitioners Versus HARPREET SINGH AND ANOTHER ... Respondents -.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Umesh Kumar Kanwar, Advocate with Ms. Nisha Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, with Mr. Ajay S. Dhiman, Advocate, for the respondents.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 20.01.2026, vide which, the learend Civil Judge in Civil Miscellaneous Application has declined the application filed by the petitioners seeking stay of operation of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 25.09.2024 in application filed for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

2. Respondents has put in appearance through Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, by filing Caveat.

3. I have heard both the counsels and gone through the impugned order carefully.

4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Civil Judge has declined stay of the execution proceedings by recording reasons that mere pendency of the application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree does not entitle the applicants to an order of stay as a matter of course and they have failed to demonstrate that any irreparable loss would be caused, which cannot be compensated by award of the compensation. Counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners are having only suit property as residential accommodation and in case, judgment and decree is executed, they would be rendered homeless, whereas counsel for the respondents contended that a Competent Court has already observed that petitioners have no right to reside in the property in question in proceedings under Domestic Violence Act on a petition filed by the petitioner No.2 under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act.

5. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge is not sustainable as in case, execution of ex parte judgment and decree is not stayed and during the pendency of the application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree, the decree is executed. That application would be rendered infructuous, as such, the instant petition is disposed of with directions to the Executing Court to stay the execution of judgment and decree in question subject to petitioners depositing the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month in the Executing Court and the Executing Court shall keep on depositing that amount in fixed recurring deposits and the entitlement would be decided after decision of the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC and if that application is allowed, then after decision of the suit on merits. The amount of Rs.10,000/- be deposited on or before 10^th of every month. In case, petitioners failed to deposit the amount so ordered, then the petition filed by the petitioners would be deemed to have been dismissed. Learned Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC on merits after affording both the parties reasonable opportunities to lead evidence and to hear the parties on merits within a period of four months from the date next fixed before the learned Civil Judge.

6. As a natural corollary, since the main cases stand disposed of, all miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them.

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)

17^th February, 2026 JUDGE S. Pathania