IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (122)

Date of Decision:-23.09.2025 Hardev Singh and Another ……Petitioners Versus Beant Singh and Others ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present: Mr. Vardaan Seth, Advocate, for the petitioners.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

1. This present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the impugned orders dated 14.08.2025 and 02.09.2025 (Annexure P-19 & P-20 respectively) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri, in Execution Petition No. 155 of 2019 (Beant Singh v. Hardev Singh & Anr.), vide which the executing court dismissed objections filed by the judgment-debtor (petitioner No.1 herein), and proceeded to issue warrants of possession.

2. Brief facts of the case are that alongwith appeal against judgment & decree dated 03.01.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri, the petitioners had filed an application under Order XLV Rule 5 CPC before learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, for stay of the operation of the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 03.01.2019. On 13.02.2019, learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, granted an interim stay of operation of the decree, which was subsequently extended vide orders dated 10.04.2019, 09.05.2019 and 03.07.2019. However, on 23.07.2019, the case was transferred to another Court, thereafter the order regarding interim relief was silent and the case remained adjourned for arguments on main appeal as well as on the application under Order XLV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC, though, the stay was never vacated by passing any speaking order. Due to non-extending the interim stay on 23.07.2019, the learned executing Court finally dismissed the objections, filed by present petitioner No.1-Hardev Singh, on 14.08.2025 and again on 02.09.2025, passed order dismissing objections of legal heirs of deceased-

JD No.2 and issued warrants of possession.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the executing court committed legal error in holding that the interim order “automatically stood vacated” merely because in the zimni order dated 23.07.2019, the interim order is not extended. It is submitted that once an interim stay is granted, it continues in operation until it is either vacated by a speaking order of the court which is granted or otherwise set aside by a court having jurisdiction to do so. Mere silence in subsequent routine orders cannot be construed as a speaking order vacating the interim stay. It is further submitted that the executing court ought not to have proceeded to execute the decree and issue warrants of possession without clarifying the fact that the stay had been validly vacated or not.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the paper book.

5. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not being issued to respondents as it would delay the proceedings besides entailing additional expenses to the respondents.

6. The principal question which arises for adjudication in the present case is whether the interim order dated 13.02.2019, passed by the learned First Appellate Court staying the operation of the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2019, continued to remain operative and protect the rights of the petitioners in absence of any specific speaking order expressly vacating or modifying the same, notwithstanding that the subsequent orders of the Appellate Court were silent; and, if so, whether the executing court acted in excess of jurisdiction and committed a manifest error of law in proceeding with the execution and issuing warrants of possession of the suit property on the erroneous assumption that the interim protection had “automatically” stood vacated.

7. An interim order granting stay of a decree or the operation of a judgment is an interim order which remains in force until the court vacates it. The interim is not dissipated by