IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

CR-3532-2025 Date of decision : 01.07.2025 Simranjit Singh ... Petitioner Versus Manjit Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr.Avtar Singh Bhatti, Advocate for Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 06.05.2025 vide which the objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed in execution proceedings.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a compromise dated 02.12.2024 in writing was effected between the petitioner and the decree holder in which it had been stated that the rent had been paid to the respondent-decree holder. It is submitted that in spite of the objections having been taken regarding the said compromise, the Executing Court had dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner without considering the above said aspect in accordance with law. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 be set aside and the objections filed by the petitioner be allowed and the execution petition filed by the respondent-decree holder be dismissed.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book.

4. It is not in dispute that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the present petitioner from the shop marked by words “EFGHIJ” having three floors shown in green colour in the site plan. The said suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff on 22.09.2021 and a decree dated 05.02.2024 was passed after due contest. The relief granted in the said suit is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“(RELIEF)

11. In view of the findings recorded on issues above, suit of the plaintiff is ordered to be decreed with costs to the effect that plaintiff is entitled for possession by way of ejectment of defendant from shop marked by words EFGHIJ having three floors shown in green colour in the site plan Ex.P1 which is part and parcel of property marked as ABCD owned by plaintiff as shown in site plan Ex.P1. Defendant is directed to hand over vacant possession of above above said premises to the plaintiff within a period of two months from the date of passing of this Judgment, failing which the plaintiff will be entitled to take vacant possession of the said premises with the assistance of the Court. Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned to the record room, Gurdaspur, after indexation.

Pronounced in open Court. (Satwinderjit Kaur), PCS, Dated:05-02-2024 Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, UID No.PB0510.”

A perusal of the above relief would show that the plaintiff-

decree holder-respondent was held entitled to possession by way of ejectment of the defendant from shop in question and two months time was granted regarding the same. It is not in dispute that there is no stay against the execution of the said judgment and decree dated 05.02.2024 and accordingly, the respondent-decree holder had filed an execution of the said judgment and decree.

5. The petitioner, who is the judgment debtor, had filed objections dated 05.05.2025 in which plea with respect to an alleged oral compromise which was stated to have been effected during the pendency of the suit, was raised. Paragraph 3 of the said objection dated 05.05.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“3. That, during the pendency of the suit, the DH approached the JD and effected oral compromise and as per the compromise, the JD paid the entire due amount of rent and the DH after receiving the rent amount, assured the JD that he will withdraw the suit on the next date of hearing, but the DH resiled from the compromise and did not fulfill his assurance.” In the said objections, no plea with respect to any alleged written compromise dated 02.12.2024 was raised.

6. The Executing Court vide order dated 06.05.2025 had rejected the above said plea of there being an oral compromise and