IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.09.2025 Tarsem Masih …Petitioner V/s Baldev Singh and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “CPC”) was rejected.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 08.01.2015 was filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff (Baldev Singh). The said suit was decreed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 14.07.2023 (Annexure P-1). Appeal (Annexure P-2) was preferred against the said judgment and decree by the present petitioner. The said appeal was accompanied by an application (Annexure P-3) under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC for stay of execution of the impugned judgment and decree. The case of the petitioner is that the said application remained pending and was never decided and in the meantime, execution proceedings continued. The reply to the said application was filed on 04.08.2025 that too on the insistence of the present petitioner since execution proceedings were pending. However, the application stands dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first Appellate Court erred in rejecting the application for stay. He submits that the first Appellate Court is the final Court of facts and that in case the decree is executed during the pendency of the appeal, grave prejudice shall be caused to the rights of the petitioner. Learned counsel further, very fairly, submits that any time period be fixed for disposal of the appeal and till then, the execution of the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2023 be kept in abeyance.

4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. There would be no necessity of issuing notice to the respondents, for, in view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, no prejudice would be caused to them.

6. No doubt, the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 08.01.2015 was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 14.07.2023. However, concededly, an appeal was promptly filed against the said judgment and decree accompanied by an application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC.

7. During the pendency of the appeal, it appears that no decision was ever taken on the application for stay. Order dated 29.07.2025, which has been produced by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, reads as under:-

“Counsel for the appellant came present and produced photocopy of order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Executing Court. Perusal of that order shows that Court has ordered the DH to file draft sale deed for 18.07.2025. Counsel for the appellant requested that application is pending under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC be disposed off at the earliest. On the other side, Clerk of Sh. Satyan Khajuria, Advocate and requested to adjourn the case for 01.08.2025 on the ground that counsel for respondent No.1 wants to argue in the presence of the respondent No.1. Request heard and allowed. Now, to come up on 01.08.2025 for arguments on application pending under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC and record be also called for the date fixed.”

8. Thereafter, order dated 01.08.2025 states as under:-

“Record received. Today case was fixed for consideration on application pending under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC but perusal of record shows that reply to above said application has not filed by respondent No.1. On request of learned counsel for respondent No.1, case is adjourned to 04.08.2025 for filing reply to the application p