Sr. No.129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4089-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 14th July 2025 JAI RAJ SINGH .....…Petitioner versus ASHOK KUMAR BATRA .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. Adhiraj Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raising a challenge to the order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as “the Civil Judge, Sonepat”), in an execution petition, whereby, the objections filed by the petitioner-Judgment Debtor, were dismissed.

2. As per the brief facts, the respondent filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Sonepat seeking recovery of mesne profits on the ground of unpaid rent of the premises, which were in possession of the petitioner as a tenant. The petitioner was directed to vacate the premises during the proceedings under Section 13 of The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973, whereas, the execution petition of the said order was filed on 04.03.2021. Consequently, on 20.09.2021, the bailiff handed over the possession of the said rented premises to the plaintiff. The suit for recovery was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) by the Court of Civil Judge, Sonepat and thereafter, an execution petition was filed by the respondent.

2.1 The petitioner-judgment debtor filed objections (Annexure P-2) during the execution proceedings challenging the maintainability of the execution petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It is alleged that the petitioner-Judgment Debtor resides in Delhi, as such, the suit should have been filed before the District Court, Delhi. It is further alleged that the decree-holder/respondent has dishonestly claimed the arrears of rent at the rate of ₹21,000/- per month from the petitioner-Judgment Debtor, which lacks bona fide on the part of the decree-holder.

2.2 The Civil Judge, Sonepat, by passing the impugned order, dismissed the said objection petition by observing that the Court has already decided the lis between the parties and the petitioner-Judgment Debtor had contested the said suit, as such, the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree to consider the objection that the petition is not maintainable on account of jurisdiction. While dismissing the said objection petition, the Civil Judge, Sonepat, adjourned the execution petition and directed the petitioner-Judgment Debtor, who is a senior citizen, to make payment to the decree-holder.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is residing in Delhi, as such, the execution petition should have been filed in Delhi. Reliance has been placed upon the decision passed the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Mohit Bhargava vs. Bharat Bhushan Bhargava and others”; (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 795 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in “Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. versus Numaligarh Refinery Ltd.”;

2010 (8) R.C.R. (Civil) 1662.

4. I have considered the aforesiad submissions and perused the paper-book.

5. The execution petition was filed within the jurisdiction of the same Civil Court which passed the decree. The objection of the petitioner is that the civil suit should have been filed in Delhi where the petitioner is residing. The said objection has been rightly overruled by the Executing Court holding that the Judgment Debtor had contested the civil suit and the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The question of jurisdiction to file a suit was within the domain of the Court where the suit was filed and the petitioner had a right to raise such an objection during the pendency of the civil suit. Such an objection could not have been raised before the Executing Court, as such, the objection has been rightly declined by the Civil Judge, Sonepat.

6. It is not disputed that the execution petition has been f