##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

114 CR-3231-2026

Pawan Kumar and Others …..Pe))oners

Vs.

Ms. Ratan Bhandari and Others .….Respondents

122 CR-3257-2026

Pawan Kumar and Others …..Pe))oners

Vs.

Ms. Ratan Bhandari and Others .….Respondents

Date of Decision.: 17.04.2026

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present: - Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Mr. Kri(cid:30)ka Sagar Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Ms. Sandhya Gaur, Advocates,

for the pe(cid:30)(cid:30)oner (in CR-3231-2026)

Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Mr. Kri(cid:30)ka Sagar Sharma and

Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Ms. Sandhya Gaur, Advocates, for the pe(cid:30)(cid:30)oner (in CR-3257-2026)

Mr. Brij Mohan Vinayak and Mr. Kunal Vinayak, Advocates, for respondents No.1 to 7/caveators (in CR-3257-2026).

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Both these revisions arise out of the same li(cid:30)ga(cid:30)on between the par(cid:30)es and, therefore, are being decided together.

2. The suit filed by the plain(cid:30)ffs (respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein) was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide

judgment & decree dated 25.08.2021, gran(cid:30)ng the following reliefs:

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-3231-2026 CR-3257-2026

a. Decree for possession of land measuring 101 kanals 14 marlas, being the subject ma?er of the impugned sale deed dated 18.07.2005, with a direc(cid:30)on to defendants No.1 to 3, 3A to 3J and defendants No.13 to 15, including subsequent purchasers, to hand over possession to

the plain(cid:30)ffs as reflected in the jamabandi for the year 2017-18.

b. Decree for declara(cid:30)on that the power of a?orney dated 11.03.2004, sale deed dated 18.07.2005, consequen(cid:30)al sale deed dated 16.05.2006 and subsequent sale deed dated 30.10.2012 were illegal, null and void and conferred no right, (cid:30)tle or interest upon the pur-

chasers.

c. Decree of permanent injunc(cid:30)on restraining the defendants from fur-

ther aliena(cid:30)ng any part of the suit property.

d. Decree for recovery of mesne profits/charges for unauthorized use and occupa(cid:30)on at the rate of ₹5,08,500/- per annum, subject to de-

posit of ad valorem court fee by the plain(cid:30)ffs.

3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the de- fendants preferred an appeal. During pendency of the appeal, the learned Addi(cid:30)onal District Judge, Amritsar, while deciding an applica(cid:30)on under Or- der XLI Rule 5 CPC vide order dated 12.01.2026, stayed opera(cid:30)on of the de- cree subject to payment of mesne profits at the rate of ₹40,000/- per killa per year in respect of the suit land measuring 101 kanals 14 marlas. The ap- pellants were directed to deposit the said amount before the trial Court within one month of accrual, failing which the interim protec(cid:30)on was to

stand vacated automa(cid:30)cally.

4. It is not disputed before this Court that the pe(cid:30)(cid:30)oners-defend- ants failed to comply with the aforesaid condi(cid:30)onal order. Consequently, the decree-holders ini(cid:30)ated execu(cid:30)on proceedings. The learned Execu(cid:30)ng

Page No. 2 of 4 Pages

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-3231-2026 CR-3257-2026

Court, vide order dated 27.03.2026, declined the prayer for stay of execu- (cid:30)on and issued warrants of possession through the concerned Tehsildar.

ThereaHer, another applica(cid:30)on for stay was also dismissed on 07.04.2026.

5. Order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Addi(cid:30)onal District Judge has been challenged in CR No.3231 of 2026, whereas orders dated 27.03.2026 and 07.04.2026 passed by the Execu(cid:30)ng Court have been assailed

in CR No.3257 of 2026

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the pe(cid:30)(cid:30)oners fairly con- cedes that the condi(cid:30)on regarding payment of mesne profits has not been complied with. However, prayer has been made that some re