123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 08.09.2025 VINEY GUPTA AND OTHERS ......PETITIONERS Vs.

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, JALANDHAR AND OTHERS .........RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.

*****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. Prayer in the present Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-6), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, in Execution No. 812 of 2023, whereby the application under Order XXI Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) filed by respondent No. 1-Corporation/Decree- Holder has been allowed by dismissing the objections of the petitioners/Judgment-Debtors and further directing them to furnish details of their property without ascertaining the amount to be recovered from the Judgment-Debtors, strictly in accordance with the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure P-2).

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1- plaintiff/the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Jalandhar, filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.10,72,147/- along with interest against the defendants-petitioners, on the allegation that in pursuance of letter dated 04.10.2001, defendant No. 1-petitioner through defendant No. 5, namely Vijay Kumar Gupta, had entered into an agreement dated 06.12.2001 with the plaintiff-Corporation through the then Manager, Jalandhar, to shell the paddy for the crop year 2001-02 to be supplied by the plaintiff under the terms and conditions of the said agreement.

2.1 The written statement was filed by the petitioners-defendants. As many as five issues (including the ‘Relief’ issue) were framed by the learned lower Court. Thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence and ultimately the suit was decreed. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was held entitled to recover Rs. 10,72,147/- from defendant No. 1 M/s Khushi Ram Durga Dass Rice Mills and its partners, including defendants No. 2 &

5, vide judgment and decree dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure P-2).

2.2 Thereafter, respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed an execution petition (Annexure P-3) before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar. Objections were filed by Judgment-Debtors No. 2 and 5 (Annexure P-4). The said objections were dismissed by the learned lower Court on 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-5).

2.3 Subsequently, an application on behalf of the Decree- Holder/respondent No. 1 under Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC for examination of the Judgment-Debtors as to their property was filed. Reply thereto was filed by the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the application was allowed by the learned lower Court vide order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-6) and Judgment-Debtors No. 2 and 5 (petitioners), namely Jugal Kishore Gupta and Vinay Gupta were directed to furnish details of their movable and immovable assets in the form of an affidavit on the next date of hearing.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that petitioner Vinay Kumar Gupta and others were never partners of M/s Khushi Ram Durga Dass Rice Mills. It is further submitted that no amount was ascertained by the Court before allowing the application under Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC. It is also submitted that it is a settled principle of law that a Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree; it must take the decree as it stands, for the decree is binding between the parties to the suit. Therefore, when the petitioners were never held to be partners of the concern, the respondent-Corporation could not have moved an application under Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC for examination of the Judgment-Debtors regarding their property.

3.1 Thus, it is submitted that the order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-6), passed by the learned Civil Jud