IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (123)

Date of Decision:-17.11.2025 SURESH KUMAR … Petitioner Versus BALRAJ SINGH ... Respondent -.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate, with Dr. Purushotam Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking directions to the learned Appellate Court to decide the appeal or stay application in a time bound manner as Executing Court is proceeding with the execution of the decree and is fixed for

3^rd of December, 2025 for warrants of possession.

2. Learned counsel contended that appeal against the judgment and decree dated 3^rd of May, 2023 was filed within the period of limitation and the same is pending for the last about two years and along with the Memorandum of Appeal an application for stay the execution of the judgment and decree was also filed but the same has not been decided till date and in case, warrants of possession is executed, then the appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant would be rendered infructuous.

3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record carefully.

4. Since, the appeal of the petitioner is pending for close to two years and is being adjourned from time to time. Appeal was filed on 24.05.2023 along with the application for stay of the execution as is clear from the order dated

24.05.2023, which reads as under:-

“ Suresh Kumar Vs. Balraj Singh CA-143-2023 Present : Shri Alok Malik, Advocate for appellant.

Civil Appeal received by assignment. It be checked and registered. Alongwith appeal, an application for stay was also filed. Let notice of the appeal as well as stay application be issued to the respondents for 10.08.2023 on furnishing PF, copy of grounds of appeal etc.”

(Vivek Singal)

ADJ, Hisar Date of Order: 24.05.2023 (UID No.HR-0483)

Yatin Kumar Stenographer-III”

5. Since then, the appeal was adjourned for service of the respondent, which was completed on 14.02.2024 and now for more than 18 months, the appeal is pending for final arguments. Neither the appeal has been decided nor the application for stay of the execution of the decree under appeal has been decided whereas execution of the impugned decree has reached the final stage and warrants of possession has already been issued.

6. Considering all the facts and circumstances, in case, indulgence of this Court is not granted to the petitioner, the appeal of the petitioner would become rendered infructuous, as such, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to learned First Appellate Court to take up the application for stay of execution of the impugned decree well before 3^rd of December, 2025 after issuing notice to the respondent and to pass an effective order so that the appeal of the petitioner may not be rendered infructuous due to inaction at the end of the Court.

7. In the meantime, Executing Court is also directed to keep the execution of warrants of possession in abeyance.

8. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)

17^th November, 2025 JUDGE

S. Pathania