Decided Arun Gupta v. Raj Kumar and Others Raj Kumar and Others
Case Details
(O&M) CR-5338-2025 (O&M) -1- - 114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR CR-5338-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 19.08.2025 Decided Arun Gupta ....Petitioner VERSUS Raj Kumar and Others Raj Kumar and Others ....Respondents
Legal Reasoning
MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU -.- 1. The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of petitioner/Judgment Debtor (JD) challenging the India has been filed by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor (JD) challenging the petitioner/Judgment Debtor (JD) challenging the India has been filed by the impugned orders dated 7 March 2025 and 25 July 2025 passed by the learned impugned orders dated 7 March 2025 and 25 July 2025 passed by the learned impugned orders dated 7 March 2025 and 25 July 2025 passed by the learned impugned orders dated 7 March 2025 and 25 July 2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, in Execution Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, in Execution Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, in Execution Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, in Execution Petition titled Raj Kumar and Others vs. Manjeet Singh and Others. Petition titled Raj Kumar and Others vs. Manjeet Singh an Petition titled Raj Kumar and Others vs. Manjeet Singh an 2. The principal challenge is to the order dated 7 March 2025, which was The principal challenge is to the order dated 7 March 2025, which was The principal challenge is to the order dated 7 March 2025, which was The principal challenge is to the order dated 7 March 2025, which was passed on an application moved by Meenakshi Gupta (Defendant No. 3 in the suit) passed on an application moved by Meenakshi Gupta (Defendant No. 3 in the suit) passed on an application moved by Meenakshi Gupta (Defendant No. 3 in the suit) passed on an application moved by Meenakshi Gupta (Defendant No. 3 in the suit) praying for stay of execution proceedings in respect of her alleged 49% share in praying for stay of execution proceedings in respect of her alleged 49% share in praying for stay of execution proceedings in respect of her alleged 49% share in praying for stay of execution proceedings in respect of her alleged 49% share in property No. D- V, Mohali. She asserted that she was not -73, Industrial Area, Phase-V, Mohali. She asserted that she was not V, Mohali. She asserted that she was not a Judgment Debtor in terms of the decree dated 19 May 2015, and had no objection a Judgment Debtor in terms of the decree dated 19 May 2015, and had no objection a Judgment Debtor in terms of the decree dated 19 May 2015, and had no objection a Judgment Debtor in terms of the decree dated 19 May 2015, and had no objection to execution being carried out in respect of 51% share belonging to JD/Defendant to execution being carried out in respect of 51% share belonging to JD/Defendant to execution being carried out in respect of 51% share belonging to JD/Defendant to execution being carried out in respect of 51% share belonging to JD/Defendant t was further submitted that she had already instituted Civil No. 1 Manjeet Singh. It was further submitted that she had already instituted Civil t was further submitted that she had already instituted Civil No. 1 Manjeet Singh. I Suit No. 165 of 2019 for declaration of her ownership and possession of the said Suit No. 165 of 2019 for declaration of her ownership and possession of the said Suit No. 165 of 2019 for declaration of her ownership and possession of the said Suit No. 165 of 2019 for declaration of her ownership and possession of the said 49% share, in which proceedings were stayed by this Court in CR No. 2944 of 49% share, in which proceedings were stayed by this Court in CR No. 2944 of 49% share, in which proceedings were stayed by this Court in CR No. 2944 of 49% share, in which proceedings were stayed by this Court in CR No. 2944 of 2021 vide order dated 30 November 2021. 2021 vide order dated 30 November 202 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-5338-2025 (O&M) -2- - 3. The Executing Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed her The Executing Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed her The Executing Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed her The Executing Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed her application. It was held that the decree dated 19 May 2015, as affirmed up to the application. It was held that the decree dated 19 May 2015, as affirmed up to the application. It was held that the decree dated 19 May 2015, as affirmed up to the application. It was held that the decree dated 19 May 2015, as affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, entitled the decree holders to possession of the entire suit Hon’ble Supreme Court, entitled the decree holders to possession of the entire suit Hon’ble Supreme Court, entitled the decree holders to possession of the entire suit Hon’ble Supreme Court, entitled the decree holders to possession of the entire suit ecific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22 property by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22 ecific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22 property by way of sp September 2009, and that the issue of Meenakshi Gupta’s alleged share had September 2009, and that the issue of Meenakshi Gupta’s alleged share had September 2009, and that the issue of Meenakshi Gupta’s alleged share had September 2009, and that the issue of Meenakshi Gupta’s alleged share had already been considered and rejected during the original proceedings. It was already been considered and rejected during the original proceedings. It was already been considered and rejected during the original proceedings. It was already been considered and rejected during the original proceedings. It was suit, in which only the trial further held that the pendency of her separate civil suit, in which only the trial further held that the pendency of her separate civil further held that the pendency of her separate civil court proceedings stand stayed, did not operate as a bar to execution of the present court proceedings stand stayed, did not operate as a bar to execution of the present court proceedings stand stayed, did not operate as a bar to execution of the present court proceedings stand stayed, did not operate as a bar to execution of the present decree. 4. It is relevant to note that the present petitioner, Arun Gupta, was not a It is relevant to note that the present petitioner, Arun Gupta, was not a It is relevant to note that the present petitioner, Arun Gupta, was not a It is relevant to note that the present petitioner, Arun Gupta, was not a a. Accordingly, he has no party to the said application filed by Meenakshi Gupta. Accordingly, he has no party to the said application filed by Meenakshi Gupt party to the said application filed by Meenakshi Gupt locus standi to challenge the order dated 7 March 2025. Even otherwise, there is no locus standi to challenge the order dated 7 March 2025. Even otherwise, there is no locus standi to challenge the order dated 7 March 2025. Even otherwise, there is no locus standi to challenge the order dated 7 March 2025. Even otherwise, there is no illegality or material irregularity in the said order warranting interference in illegality or material irregularity in the said order warranting interference in illegality or material irregularity in the said order warranting interference in illegality or material irregularity in the said order warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. revisional jurisdiction. 5. 25 July 2025, the grievance of As regards the impugned order dated 25 July 2025, the grievance of As regards the impugned order dated As regards the impugned order dated the petitioner is that his applications dated 21 February 2025 and 24 March 2025 the petitioner is that his applications dated 21 February 2025 and 24 March 2025 the petitioner is that his applications dated 21 February 2025 and 24 March 2025 the petitioner is that his applications dated 21 February 2025 and 24 March 2025 remain pending adjudication, yet the Executing Court has proceeded further in remain pending adjudication, yet the Executing Court has proceeded further in remain pending adjudication, yet the Executing Court has proceeded further in remain pending adjudication, yet the Executing Court has proceeded further in that both execution without deciding them. A perusal of the record confirms that both execution without deciding them. A perusal of the record confirms execution without deciding them. A perusal of the record confirms applications are still pending consideration. applications are still pending consideration. 6.
Decision
In view of the above, while the challenge to the order dated 7 March In view of the above, while the challenge to the order dated 7 March In view of the above, while the challenge to the order dated 7 March In view of the above, while the challenge to the order dated 7 March 2025 fails and the same is upheld, the order dated 25 July 2025 is modified to the 2025 fails and the same is upheld, the order dated 25 July 2025 is modified to the 2025 fails and the same is upheld, the order dated 25 July 2025 is modified to the 2025 fails and the same is upheld, the order dated 25 July 2025 is modified to the all first decide the petitioner’s pending extent that the learned Executing Court shall first decide the petitioner’s pending all first decide the petitioner’s pending extent that the learned Executing Court sh applications dated 21 February 2025 and 24 March 2025 by passing a speaking applications dated 21 February 2025 and 24 March 2025 by passing a speaking applications dated 21 February 2025 and 24 March 2025 by passing a speaking applications dated 21 February 2025 and 24 March 2025 by passing a speaking order before proceeding further with the execution. order before proceeding further with the execution. order before proceeding further with the execution. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-5338-2025 (O&M) -3- - 7. 8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. y, also stand disposed off. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. Pending application(s), if an August 19, 2025 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document