Mr. Jagdeep S. Rana, Advocate with Ms. Preeti Jha, Advocate for & Ors. v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Jagdeep S. Rana, Advocate with Ms. Preeti Jha, Advocate for the petitioner. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.
The present civil revision petition has been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing directions to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab to decide Execution Application No. 147 of 2020 arising out of Consumer Complaint No.629 of 2019 titled as “Ravinder Kumar Vs. M/s Royale Empire & Ors.”, as expeditiously as possible.
In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as it would only delay the proceedings and cause unnecessary expenditure to the respondents.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material on record.
The only grievance of the petitioner is that he instituted an CR-4456-2026 -2- execution application before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab seeking enforcement and execution of a final judgment dated 13.02.2020. The said execution application has been pending since the year 2020 and has not yet been decided, despite its restoration to its original number vide order dated 29.09.2025.
The grievance of the petitioner is bonafide. In view of the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (2021) 6 SCC 418, Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, (2025) 9 SCC 618, Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education & Welfare Society and (2025) 9 SCC 568, Periyammal v. V. Rajamani, an obligation is cast upon the Executing Court to conclude the execution in a time-bound manner. In these circumstances, the executing court should make sincere efforts to ensure that the said directions are complied with in its true spirit.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court deems its appropriate to request the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab to dispose of the execution application as expeditiously as possible, in light of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. No order as to costs.
of.
27.05.2026 Priyanka Thakur Pending misc application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 27 May 2026. The bench was YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.