IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2094-2026(O&M)

Date of decision: 09.03.2026 Usha Rani ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Hardish Kaur ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. L.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant/judgment debtor seeking setting aside of the order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P5) passed by the learned Executing Court whereby objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent/decree- holder had filed Civil Suit dated 06.10.2020 for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 30.03.2021. The said Suit was ex parte decreed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P1) for alternative relief of recovery of earnest amount of Rs.9 lakh along with interest @ 12% per annum. On 31.01.2024, the respondent/decree holder had filed execution application (Annexure P2) under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC. Subsequently, in June 2025, the petitioner had filed objections (Annexure P3) seeking dismissal of the Execution Petition on the ground that the said execution is not maintainable as the decree is ex parte and obtained by concealing material facts. Vide impugned order dated 19.09.2025, the objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed.

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Executing Court was in error in dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner as it failed to appreciate that the petitioner in Para 8 of his objections (Annexure P3) had categorically pleaded that the house of the petitioner attached by the Executing Court is the only residential house of the petitioner. The petitioner had raised the objection that attachment and sale of residential house is barred under Section 60(1) (ccc) of CPC. It is contended that therefore, the residential house regarding which decree holder has obtained warrant of possession in the present execution application is exempted from attachment under the above-said provision as the said house is the only residential house of the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that the impugned order deserves to be set aside as the said objection of the petitioner has not been dealt with while dismissing the objections.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record in detail.

5. I find no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order in view of the following findings of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib in order dated 19.09.2025 as under: -

“5. The main file was summoned and perused. It shows that the then defendant now applicant was duly served. Zimini order dated 17.10.2022 shows that RC and summons were issued to the defendant and since they were not received back, fresh were ordered to be issued for 10.11.2022. Zimini order dated

10.11.2022 reproduced as under:-

"Summons of defendant received back with a report that defendant has refused to accept the summons. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that defendant cannot be served in an ordinary way. Let defendant be served through Munadi or affixation on depositing of Munadi charges within 7 days, for 04.01.2022".

6. This shows that the defendant had refused to accept the summons, after which, her service through munadi or affixation was ordered. Yet on the next date of hearing i.e. 04.01.2023, the defendant was proceeded against exparte after due service upon her through munadi. The zimini order dated 04.01.2023 is reproduced as under:-

"Munadi of defendant received back duly effected. Case called several times since morning but defendant has not come present. Hence defendant is proceeded against exparte. Now to come up on 20.02.2023 for exparte evidence of plaintiff".

7. Thereafter, exparte evidence by