Ranjit Kaur v. Sachin Sharma
Case Details
(O&M) CR-6625-2025 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR-6625-2025 (O&M) CR Decided on :- 25.09.2025 Decided on : Ranjit Kaur ....Petitioner VERSUS Sachin Sharma ....Respondent
Legal Reasoning
MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Brijesh Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Brijesh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 12.12.2024 passed India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 12.12.2024 passed India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 12.12.2024 passed India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar, whereby in the by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar, whereby in the by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar, whereby in the by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar, whereby in the execution proceedings arising out of a decree dated 09.05.2024, the C execution proceeding ourt below a decree dated 09.05.2024, the Court below framed issues and directed the parties to lead evidence. framed issues and directed the parties to lead evidence. framed issues and directed the parties to lead evidence. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once a consent decree Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once a consent decree Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once a consent decree Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once a consent decree had been passed, the Executing Court was bound to enforce the same had been passed, the in a summary was bound to enforce the same in a summary manner and could not have ordered the framing of issues or directed recording of manner and could not have ordered the framing of issues or directed recording of manner and could not have ordered the framing of issues or directed recording of manner and could not have ordered the framing of issues or directed recording of evidence, as the same would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. It was urged evidence, as the same would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. It was urged evidence, as the same would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. It was urged evidence, as the same would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. It was urged that objections, if any, could be decided on the basis of material already available that objections, if any, could be decided on the basis of material already availa that objections, if any, could be decided on the basis of material already availa that objections, if any, could be decided on the basis of material already availa like procedure was warranted in execution. on record and no detailed trial-like procedure was warranted in execution. on record and no detailed trial 3. Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and submits that the executing Court has rightly passed the respondent and submits that impugned executing Court has rightly passed the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 in accordance with law order dated 12.12.2024 in accordance with law. Therefore, he prays that the present revision petition be dismissed. present revision petition be dismissed. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6625-2025 (O&M) -2- - 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties I have heard learned counsel and carefully gone for the parties and carefully gone through the impugned order as well as the record. through the impugned order as well as the record. through the impugned order as well as the record. 5. C, all questions arising It is settled law that under Section 47 CPC, all questions arising It is settled law that under Section 47 CP It is settled law that under Section 47 CP between the parties relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree between the parties relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree between the parties relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree between the parties relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree . The procedure to be adopted depends shall be determined by the Executing Court. The procedure to be adopted depends . The procedure to be adopted depends shall be determined by the arties disclose on the nature of objections raised. Where the pleadings of the parties disclose on the nature of objections raised. Where the pleadings of the p on the nature of objections raised. Where the pleadings of the p variance on factual aspects which cannot be decided merely on the basis of variance on factual aspects which cannot be decided merely on the basis of variance on factual aspects which cannot be decided merely on the basis of variance on factual aspects which cannot be decided merely on the basis of documents, the executing court is well within its jurisdiction to frame issues and documents, the executing court is well within its jurisdiction to frame issues and documents, the executing court is well within its jurisdiction to frame issues and documents, the executing court is well within its jurisdiction to frame issues and permit the parties to adduce evidence. There is no statutory bar against framing of permit the parties to adduce evidence. There is no statutory bar against framing o permit the parties to adduce evidence. There is no statutory bar against framing o permit the parties to adduce evidence. There is no statutory bar against framing o issues in execution, and it is equally well established that framing of issues is not a issues in execution, and it is equally well established that framing of issues is not a issues in execution, and it is equally well established that framing of issues is not a issues in execution, and it is equally well established that framing of issues is not a matter of right in every case but depends upon the necessity of resolving disputed matter of right in every case but depends upon the necessity of resolving disputed matter of right in every case but depends upon the necessity of resolving disputed matter of right in every case but depends upon the necessity of resolving disputed facts which arise in the course of execution. facts which arise in the course of execution. 6. respondent filed objections contesting In the present case, since the respondent filed objections contesting respondent filed objections contesting In the present case, since the the maintainability of execution and raised factual pleas which required the maintainability of execution and raised factual pleas which required the maintainability of execution and raised factual pleas which required the maintainability of execution and raised factual pleas which required adjudication, the executing court deemed it appropriate to frame issues and call adjudication, the executing court deemed it appropriate to frame issues and call adjudication, the executing court deemed it appropriate to frame issues and call adjudication, the executing court deemed it appropriate to frame issues and call ted with. The upon the parties to lead evidence. This approach cannot be faulted with. The upon the parties to lead evidence. This approach cannot be faul upon the parties to lead evidence. This approach cannot be faul discretion exercised by the court below is supported by the provisions of law, and discretion exercised by the court below is supported by the provisions of law, and discretion exercised by the court below is supported by the provisions of law, and discretion exercised by the court below is supported by the provisions of law, and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any illegality or jurisdictional error the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any illegality or jurisdictional error the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any illegality or jurisdictional error the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. in the impugned order. 7. present revision petition. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present revision petition. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the The order dated 12.12.2024 suffers from no infirmity and stands upheld. The civil The order dated 12.12.2024 suffers from no infirmity and stands upheld. The civil The order dated 12.12.2024 suffers from no infirmity and stands upheld. The civil The order dated 12.12.2024 suffers from no infirmity and stands upheld. The civil revision petition is dismissed. revision petition is dismissed. 8.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 September 25, 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6625-2025 (O&M) -3- - Whether reportable Whether reportable : Yes/No : Yes/No TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document