IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (116 Date of Decision:-15.09.2025 Bhanwar Singh … Petitioner Versus Pardeep Kumar ... Respondent ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Rakesh Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to assail the order dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, whereby the application moved by the petitioner-appellant under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) for stay of the judgment and decree in the pending civil appeal was declined, and further prays for suspension of the execution proceedings arising therefrom.

2. A suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 07.04.2014, instituted by the respondent–plaintiff, came to be decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sub-Division Bilaspur. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-appellant preferred an appeal challenging the said judgment and decree, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in the institution of the appeal as well as a prayer seeking leave to prosecute the appeal as an ‘indigent person’.

3. The learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, vide the impugned order, declined to grant stay of the judgment and decree under challenge in appeal. The said order has been impugned by the petitioner on the premise that, if the execution proceedings are permitted to attain finality and possession of the suit property is delivered to the decree-holder, the statutory right of appeal itself would stand rendered nugatory and infructuous. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the learned District Judge erred in dismissing the stay application primarily on the ground of delay in filing the appeal, despite the fact that such delay stood condoned by a judicial order; once condonation had been granted, the delay ought not to have weighed with the Court in the consideration of interim relief.

3.1 The petitioner further asserts that the learned District Judge failed to appreciate that possession of the suit property had not yet been delivered, and thus the balance of convenience lay in protecting the appellant’s rights till the appeal was decided on merits. The record, however, demonstrates that although the appeal was presented on 31.05.2023, it remained pending for adjudication of the application for exemption from payment of Court fee, and the requisite Court fee was deposited only on 08.07.2025. The appeal was admittedly time-barred and the delay stood condoned only on 26.05.2025. During the interregnum, the decree had already been substantially executed by the Executing Court; the sale deed in favour of the decree-holder had been executed and registered, and only symbolic possession of the suit property was pending delivery. Upon considering the matter, the learned District Judge concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate a balance of convenience in his favour. On the contrary, it was observed that any further stay of the execution proceedings would seriously prejudice the decree-holder, who, despite having complied with the obligation of tendering the balance sale consideration, would be deprived of the fruits of a lawful decree and suffer irreparable loss.

4. Having regard to the fact that the suit property already stands subjected to execution proceedings and has been alienated by way of sale in favour of a third-party auction-purchaser, whose purchase has since been duly confirmed, only the formality of effecting delivery of symbolic possession remains outstanding. At this juncture, any order of stay of further execution would not only occasion irreparable prejudice to the auction purchaser, a bona fide third-party whose rights stand crystallized, but would also result in grave inconvenience to the