NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

On 14.11.2025, the following order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court :-

“Petitioners herein are two of the Judgment-Debtors in Execution No.244 of 2022. They assail the order dated 18.10.2025 passed by the Executing Court, whereby warrants of possession have been issued with the further direction to provide the necessary Police Aid. Learned counsel submits that ejectment order was passed against the petitioners and one Kimti Lal on 26.09.2018 in a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The appeal against that order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and no stay was granted by this Court in the revision, which is pending. In the meantime, execution petition was filed by the landlord le. respondent No.1 herein, wherein objections had been filed by the tenants on 19.09.2025. Reply to the said objections were filed by the decree-holder on 29.09.2025 and the case was adjourned to 30.09.2025 for arguments. However, on the next date of hearing i.e. 30.09.2025, the decree holder withdrew the execution on account of talks of compromise going on between the parties with liberty to revive, in case compromise is not effected. Copy of that order is Annexure P-2. Learned counsel has then drawn attention towards the application Annexure P-3, which was moved by the decree-holder for the revival of the execution. The Executing Court, after taking the report of the Ahlmad, straight-way issued the warrants of possession by passing the impugned order and without even issuing any notice to the petitioners or without even disposing of the objections which had been earlier filed by the petitioner-tenant. Notice of motion to respondent No.1/decree-holder only at this stage for 10.12.2025. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order dated 18.10.2025 (Annexure P-5) shall remain stayed.”

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the stay of impugned order was granted by the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 14.11.2025 as the complete facts were not stated before the co-ordinate Bench.

It is submitted that in actual fact the present revision petition is not maintainable as even prior to filing of the present revision petition on 3.11.2025, the execution petition filed by the respondent had been withdrawn by the respondent as being fully satisfied vide order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the Executing Court. Copy of the said order is handed over in Court, which is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners controverts the submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.1 and submits that possession of the suit property is still with the petitioners.

However, learned counsel for respondent No.1 refers to the order dated 01.11.2025, wherein, it is categorically recorded that

“…the Execution is dismissed as withdrawn being fully satisfied. Accordingly, aforesaid application for recalling the warrants of possession stands infructuous….”.

Heard.

In view of the facts noted above, which are not controverted by learned counsel for the petitioners, the present petition stands dismissed

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.