119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 24.09.2025 SHYAM SUNDER ALIAS BHURA ......PETITIONER Vs.

GURMEET SINGH AND OTHERS .........RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Narinder Singh Behgal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

*****

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 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-15), passed by the learned Executing Court in Execution Petition No. EXE-11-2020, titled Gurmeet Singh vs. Harjinder Singh and another, whereby the property of the present petitioner/defendant No. 2/JD No. 2 was attached and ordered to be sold in public auction to satisfy the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2019 ₹

(Annexure P-10), for recovery of a total amount of 28,20,360/-, and the subsequent order dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure P-16), whereby fresh sale warrants were issued by the learned Executing Court due to an erroneous report of the ‘Ahlmad’, who had issued sale warrants for ₹ 15,00,000/-

₹

instead of 28,20,360/-, and the order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-17), whereby after filing of the ‘munadi’ fee by the decree-holders, the schedule of sale of the property of the petitioner/defendant No. 2/JD No. 2 was issued.

1.1 It is further alleged that while passing the aforesaid orders, the learned Executing Court, by exceeding its jurisdiction, ordered recovery of ₹

28,20,360/- only from the present petitioner/defendant No. 2/JD No. 2, beyond the amount recoverable from the petitioner/defendant No. 2/JD No. 2 in terms of the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure ₹

P-10), in which recovery of 15,00,000/- along with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the suit until recovery had been ordered from both the judgment-debtors, namely Harjinder Singh/defendant No. 1 and the petitioner/defendant No. 2/JD No. 2, jointly, severally and co-extensively.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs had ₹

filed a suit for recovery of 15,00,000/- against the present petitioner and proforma respondent No. 3 – Harjinder Singh @ Dulla, by way of damages for causing the death of Ikwinder Singh, son of the plaintiffs.

2.1 The suit was contested by the present petitioner and Harjinder Singh @ Dulla. Issues were framed, evidence was led, and ultimately the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed, holding both the defendants individually, collectively and co-extensively liable for causing the death of Ikwinder Singh. The defendants were given two months for making the payment, failing which they were directed to pay the decretal amount with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the suit until recovery, vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure P-10), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, in Civil Suit No. 232/RT/2013, dated 20.01.2011, titled Gurmeet Singh and another vs.

Harjinder Singh @ Dulla and another.

2.2 Thereafter, the execution application was filed before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, in which it was submitted that the property of Judgment Debtor No. 2, Shyam Sunder @ Bhura (the petitioner), had already been attached by the Court and now the same may be ordered to be put to sale in public auction for satisfaction of the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure P-10). A total amount of ₹

28,20,360/- was stated to be recoverable from the judgment-debtors. The objections were filed to the application under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC by the present petitioner, and it was argued on his behalf that a civil appeal is pending against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure P-10). However, the learned Executing Court, vide order dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-15), held that there is no stay in the present execution and that the same can only be satisfied by way of sale of the property of the judgment-debtors. Accordingly, the application under Ord