IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1600-2026(O&M)

Date of decision: 23.02.2026 Smt. Savitri @ Savitri Devi ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Smt. Sumitra Devi (since deceased) through LRs ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate for respondent/caveator.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the third-party objector/wife of tenant namely Trilok, laying challenge to the order dated 29.01.2026 (Annexure P8) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.13/2026 dated 16.01.2026 pending for 26.02.2026 vide which application for stay, has been dismissed.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent/landlord Sumitra had filed Eviction Petition against tenant Tirlok Sharma, who was husband of the petitioner. During pendency of the said Eviction Petition Trilok Sharma had died; whereupon, Sumitra had impleaded Raju and Parmod sons of Tirlok Sharma as LRs; and the petitioner/objector was not impleaded as LR of late Sh. Tirlok Sharma despite being his wife. Learned counsel contends that the order of the Rent Controller dated 14.10.2015 was not binding upon the petitioner as she was not a party in the Rent Petition despite being wife of the original tenant Tirlok Sharma and despite the fact that petitioner was residing in the same demised house. It is submitted that accordingly, it was mandatory for the landlord Sumitra to implead petitioner as party in the Eviction Petition. It is submitted that despite the above-said facts, learned Rent Controller had issued warrants of possession qua the house in dispute. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed objections on numerous grounds before the learned Executing Court. However, learned Executing Court vide order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure P4) had dismissed the objections of the petitioner. Thereafter, against the order dated 17.11.2025, the petitioner had filed appeal (Annexure P5) along with an application for stay of the operation of the impugned order as well as stay of proceedings before the learned Executing Court. However, vide impugned order dated 29.01.2026 (Annexure P8), learned Additional District Judge, Panipat has dismissed the application for stay. Learned counsel contends that the said order is not sustainable on account of the fact that the same is a non-speaking and cryptic order. The learned Appellate Court has not perused the Grounds of Appeal or even the order dated 17.11.2025 while passing the impugned order. It is submitted that learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that if stay is not granted and the petitioner is evicted, the basic objective of filing the appeal would be defeated and appeal would be rendered infructuous. It is accordingly prayed that the present revision petition be allowed, and the impugned order be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent- landlady Sumitra (since deceased through LRs), vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3996 OF 2018 decided on 19.04.2018 titled as “Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain & Others”, has held that it is not necessary for the landlord to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant. Learned counsel submits that in any event, present petition has been rendered infructuous as vide order dated 11.02.2026, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat has already issued warrants of possession; and vide order dated 14.02.2026, the said warrants have been executed and possession has been handed over to the respondent; in respect of which bailiff report dated 17.02.2026 has been received. Accordingly, dismissal of the present petition is prayed for.

4. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties.

5. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit