IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :29.10.2025 BANTA SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR NISHAN SINGH ... PETITIONER VERSUS DIWAN SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Nikhil Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner/JD is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guruharsahai, vide which the learned Executing Court dismissed the objections filed by the Judgment Debtor and issued warrants of possession with police help. 2. It is the case of petitioner/JD that a suit for possession was preferred by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitioner-defendant on 18.08.2018. In the said suit, petitioner-defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2019 and subsequently, ex-parte judgment and decree were passed on

11.07.2024 against the defendant-petitioner.

3. Upon coming to know about the passing of the said ex parte decree, the petitioner-JD on 04.03.2025 preferred an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking setting aside of the order dated 20.03.2019 as well as the ex parte judgment and decree dated 11.07.2024. The said application is still pending adjudication and is presently fixed for filing of reply by the decree-holder.

4. However, despite repeated opportunities, the decree-holder has failed to file the reply and is instead pressing for execution of the decree.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-JD submits that if the impugned order is allowed to stand and the decree is executed during the pendency of the said application, the very purpose of the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC would be rendered infructuous. However, the learned Executing Court, without considering the pendency of the said application, has proceeded with the execution and issued warrants of possession with police help vide the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P-1).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-JD has argued that once the petitioner’s application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is pending consideration, the execution of the ex-parte decree ought to have been stayed by Court. He has placed reliance upon following judgments:-

(i) Siraj @ Suraj Vs. Sumit Jain, C.R. No. 3760 of 2023, decided on 06.07.2023 by this Court;

(ii) Davinder Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. Narinder Pal Singh & Ors.

C.R. No. 722 of 2016, decided on 12.04.2026;

(iii) Gurpal Singh Vs. Balwant Singh, C.R. No. 5339 of 2025, decided on 11.08.2025, by this Court.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside the ex parte order as well as the ex parte judgment and decree. The said application was filed on 04.03.2025. On 22.05.2025, the respondent–decree holder appeared before the Court, and thereafter, the matter remained pending for filing of reply by the decree holder. The case was successively adjourned for this purpose on 23.07.2025, 27.08.2025, 14.10.2025, 16.09.2025, and 16.10.2025. However, despite repeated opportunities, the reply was not filed, and further time was sought. The matter is now stated to be pending for filing of reply by the decree holder on 03.11.2025.

8. It is the case of the petitioner-JD that on the one hand decree holder is deliberately delaying the adjudication of his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC by not filing the reply, on the other hand, simultaneously pressing for execution of the ex-parte decree and has obtained warrants of possession. This, according to the petitioner-JD, renders his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC infructuous and defeats the ends of justice.

9. I find merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-JD. The manner in which the execution proceedings are being pursued, despite the pendency of the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, is likely to result in grave injustice to the petitioner-J