IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-9622-2025 DECIDED ON: 19.12.2025 M/S BALAJI ELECTRO WELD PVT. LTD.

.....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S VIJAY WIRE DRIVING AND STEEL INDUSTRY .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Ajay Vijarania, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri, whereby the application moved by the petitioner–defendant for staying the execution proceedings arising out of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 31.05.2023 during the pendency of the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC has been declined.

2. The brief background of the case is that the respondent instituted a civil suit which culminated in an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 31.05.2023. Subsequent thereto, execution proceedings were initiated. The petitioner, upon acquiring knowledge of the decree, moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree and, simultaneously, sought stay of execution proceedings till the decision of the said application. The learned Court below, after considering the matter, dismissed the stay application, which has given rise to the present revision petition.

3. At the outset, this Court is of the view that no notice was required to be issued to the respondent, as the controversy involved is confined to a short legal issue regarding the correctness of the order declining stay of execution and does not necessitate issuance of notice.

4. Having considered the record and the submissions, this Court finds that no ground is made out for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. The mere pendency of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC does not, by itself, create any legal embargo on the execution of a subsisting decree. The grant of stay of execution is a discretionary relief and can be exercised only when the applicant is able to demonstrate, at least prima facie, circumstances warranting such protection.

5. In the present case, except for asserting that the ex-parte decree is under challenge, no material has been placed on record to justify suspension of execution proceedings. The issues relating to service of summons and the validity of the ex-parte decree are matters which are to be examined independently in the proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and cannot, at this stage, be presumed in favour of the petitioner so as to stall execution altogether.

6. This Court finds that the approach adopted by the Court below in refusing to stay the execution proceedings is in consonance with settled principles and does not suffer from any perversity, arbitrariness or jurisdictional infirmity. Interference under Article 227 is, therefore, not warranted.

7. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. However, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

8. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(MANDEEP PANNU)

19.12.2025 JUDGE

Poonam Negi