IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-8581-2025 Date of decision: 04.12.2025 Gurdev Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Jasvinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present : Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.09.2025 (Annexure P-9) and 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Appellate Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents, namely Jaswinder Singh and others, instituted a Civil Suit bearing Case No. CS/26/2016, presented on 11.01.2016, titled “Jaswinder Singh and others vs. Gurdev Singh and others” seeking a decree for possession, recovery and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the present petitioners filed their written statement, and the learned trial Court framed as many as eight issues, including the issue of relief. The parties led their respective evidence, and ultimately the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2022. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, passed the decree in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and against the petitioners/defendants. It was further held that the ₹

respondents/plaintiffs were entitled to recover mesne profits @ 5,000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till the delivery of possession. The aforesaid judgment and decree dated 21.11.2022 was challenged before the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula. During the pendency of the appeal, the present respondents moved an application seeking a direction to the appellants/petitioners to deposit the requisite Court fee and to pay the mesne profits as assessed by the learned trial Court. The learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, vide the impugned order dated 16.09.2025, held that the possession of the suit property had been obtained by the respondents on 22.02.2023. At the same time, in the said order, the petitioners/appellants were directed to affix the requisite ad valorem Court fee in the appeal and to pay the outstanding amount towards mesne profits in terms of the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2022. Thereafter, the present petitioners/appellants filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking recall/modification of the order dated 16.09.2025, whereby the direction regarding payment of mesne profits during the pendency of the appeal had been issued. Reply was filed to the said application, and ultimately, the application for recall/modification of the order dated 16.09.2025 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, vide order dated 10.11.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, could not have directed the petitioners to pay the outstanding mesne profits to the respondents vide order dated 16.09.2025, particularly when the appeal is still pending adjudication. It is submitted that since the arguments in the appeal are yet to be advanced, the learned appellate Court ought to have awaited the final outcome of the appeal before passing the order dated 16.09.2025. On these premises, he prays that the orders dated 16.09.2025 and 10.11.2025 be set aside.

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

5. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as it would only delay the proceeding and cause unnecessary expenditure to the respondents. 6. After hearing counsel for the petitioners, a ponderable matter before this Court is as to whether Additional District Judgment, Panchkula, could have directed the present petitioners to pay the mesne profits as per judgment and decree dated 21.11.2022? As discussed above, the possession of the suit property had already been obtained by the respondents on 22.02.20