IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (124)

Date of Decision:-25.03.2026 Munni ……Petitioner Versus Ravi Kumar ……Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor have been dismissed. A further prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P- 6), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar, whereby the application filed by the decree-holder for depositing the balance sale consideration of ₹3,30,000/- has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent/decree-holder had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 30.12.2020 against the petitioner. It is further contended that although notice of the said suit was duly served upon the petitioner, he failed to appear before the learned trial Court and was accordingly proceeded against ex parte, and the suit came to be decreed ex parte. It is further submitted that the respondent/decree-holder thereafter filed an execution petition to execute the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2023. Upon receipt of notice in the execution proceedings, the petitioner/judgment debtor filed objections; however, the learned Executing Court, after considering the reply thereto, dismissed the objections vide order dated 05.02.2026. It is further contended that during the pendency of the execution petition, the respondent/decree-holder filed an application seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideration of ₹3,30,000/-, which was allowed vide order dated 26.02.2026 after hearing both the parties. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has also filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 18.04.2023, which is pending consideration for 16.04.2026. It is thus prayed that till the decision of the said application, the operation of the impugned orders dated 05.02.2026 and 26.02.2026 be stayed so that the said application does not become infructuous.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book.

4. Considering the limited nature of relief sought, issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with, as the same would only result in further delay in the proceedings.

5. In view of the averments made in the petition, the present revision petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar is directed to decide the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor, within a period of three months from today.

6. Till the decision of the said application, the operation of the impugned orders dated 05.02.2026 and 26.02.2026, are hereby stayed.

7. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar for compliance, expeditiously.

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

JUDGE

25.03.2026 Shubham Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No