Pronounced on Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others State of Haryana and Others
Case Details
2025 (O&M) CR-6860-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR CR-6860-2025 (O&M) Reserved on:- 15.10.2025 Reserved on: Pronounced on:-27.10.2025 Pronounced on Pawan Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and Others State of Haryana and Others ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Parminder Singh , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana for the respondents. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana for the respondents. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana for the respondents. -.- MANDEEP PANNU PANNU J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the present revision petition under Article The petitioner has preferred the present revision petition under Article The petitioner has preferred the present revision petition under Article The petitioner has preferred the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court, whereby the execution application filed by the petitioner learned Executing Court, whereby the execution application filed by the petitioner learned Executing Court, whereby the execution application filed by the petitioner learned Executing Court, whereby the execution application filed by the petitioner for enforcement of the decree for mandatory injunction dated 21.10.2021, as for enforcement of the decree for mandatory injunction dated 21.10.2021, as for enforcement of the decree for mandatory injunction dated 21.10.2021, as for enforcement of the decree for mandatory injunction dated 21.10.2021, as affirmed in appeal on 24.07.2025, has been dismissed. affirmed in appeal on 24.07.2025, has been dismissed. affirmed in appeal on 24.07.2025, has been dismissed. Brief Facts 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Brief facts of the case are that t decree holder filed a suit he petitioner–decree holder filed a suit for mandatory injunction before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), for mandatory injunction before the , seeking a learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Indri, seeking a direction to the respondents to remove encroachment made over his land direction to the respondents to remove encroachment made over his land direction to the respondents to remove encroachment made over his land direction to the respondents to remove encroachment made over his land comprised in Rectangle No. 17, Killa Nos. 21/2/2, 22/2, 23/2, 24/2, and 25/2/1, as comprised in Rectangle No. 17, Killa Nos. 21/2/2, 22/2, 23/2, 24/2, and 25/2/1, as comprised in Rectangle No. 17, Killa Nos. 21/2/2, 22/2, 23/2, 24/2, and 25/2/1, as comprised in Rectangle No. 17, Killa Nos. 21/2/2, 22/2, 23/2, 24/2, and 25/2/1, as per the demarcation report dated 06.06.2017. It was per the demarcation report dated 06.06.2017. alleged that respondents No. 1 It was alleged that respondents No. 1 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) CR-6860-2025 (O&M) -2- to 3 (PWD Department) had constructed a road by enclosing a portion of the to 3 (PWD Department) had constructed a road by enclosing a portion of the to 3 (PWD Department) had constructed a road by enclosing a portion of the to 3 (PWD Department) had constructed a road by enclosing a portion of the M/s Best Foods Ltd. petitioner’s land, and subsequently, respondent No. 4 – M/s Best Foods Ltd. petitioner’s land, and subsequently, respondent No. 4 petitioner’s land, and subsequently, respondent No. 4 The through its Chairman, further encroached upon another part of the same land. The through its Chairman, further encroached upon another part of the same la through its Chairman, further encroached upon another part of the same la learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence and the site plan, decreed the learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence and the site plan, decreed the learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence and the site plan, decreed the learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence and the site plan, decreed the suit for mandatory injunction vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2021, suit for mandatory injunction vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2021, suit for mandatory injunction vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2021, suit for mandatory injunction vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2021, The appeal preferred directing respondents No. 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment. The appeal preferred directing respondents No. 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment. directing respondents No. 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment. arned Additional District Judge- dents No. 1 to 3 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge dents No. 1 to 3 was dismissed by the le by respondents No. 1 to 3 was dismissed by the le Karnal vide judgment dated 24.07.2025, whereas respondent No. 4 did not I, Karnal vide judgment dated 24.07.2025, whereas respondent No. 4 did not Karnal vide judgment dated 24.07.2025, whereas respondent No. 4 did not Karnal vide judgment dated 24.07.2025, whereas respondent No. 4 did not challenge the decree and it thus attained finality as against him. challenge the decree and it thus attained finality as against him. challenge the decree and it thus attained finality as against him. 3. ecution application seeking The petitioner thereafter filed an execution application seeking The petitioner thereafter filed an ex The petitioner thereafter filed an ex Respondents No. 1 to 3 contested the same enforcement of the aforesaid decree. Respondents No. 1 to 3 contested the same Respondents No. 1 to 3 contested the same enforcement of the aforesaid decree. by filing a reply, taking the plea that the appeal against the trial Court’s decree was by filing a reply, taking the plea that the appeal against the trial Court’s decree was by filing a reply, taking the plea that the appeal against the trial Court’s decree was by filing a reply, taking the plea that the appeal against the trial Court’s decree was ting Court. still pending. The said objection was dismissed by the executing Court. still pending. The said objection was dismissed by the execu still pending. The said objection was dismissed by the execu Respondent No. 4 did not file any objection. Respondent No. 4 did not file any objection. 4. Subsequently, respondents No. 1 to 3 moved an application referring Subsequently, respondents No. 1 to 3 moved an application referring Subsequently, respondents No. 1 to 3 moved an application referring Subsequently, respondents No. 1 to 3 moved an application referring to insolvency proceedings initiated before the National Company Law Tribunal to insolvency proceedings initiated before the National Company Law Tribunal to insolvency proceedings initiated before the National Company Law Tribunal to insolvency proceedings initiated before the National Company Law Tribunal since a liquidator had been (NCLT) against respondent No. 4 and contended that since a liquidator had been (NCLT) against respondent No. 4 and contended that (NCLT) against respondent No. 4 and contended that appointed, no transfer of assets of the corporate debtor could be made. appointed, no transfer of assets of the corporate debtor could be made. appointed, no transfer of assets of the corporate debtor could be made. 5. The executing Court, vide impugned order dated 18.08.2025, The executing Court, vide impugned order dated 18.08.2025, The executing Court, vide impugned order dated 18.08.2025, The executing Court, vide impugned order dated 18.08.2025, dismissed the execution petition, holding that due to the appointment of a dismissed the execution petition, holding that due to the appointment of a dismissed the execution petition, holding that due to the appointment of a dismissed the execution petition, holding that due to the appointment of a ossession of the land could not be transferred to the petitioner. liquidator, the possession of the land could not be transferred to the petitioner. liquidator, the p for the parties Submissions of learned counsel for the parties Submissions of 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is ed beyond the illegal and without jurisdiction, as the executing Court has travelled beyond the illegal and without jurisdiction, as the executing Court has travell illegal and without jurisdiction, as the executing Court has travell decree. It is submitted that the NCLT proceedings do not adjudicate civil decree. It is submitted that the NCLT proceedings do not adjudicate civil decree. It is submitted that the NCLT proceedings do not adjudicate civil decree. It is submitted that the NCLT proceedings do not adjudicate civil TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) CR-6860-2025 (O&M) -3- ownership rights of the petitioner’s land and that no material was ever placed by ownership rights of the petitioner’s land and that no material was ever placed by ownership rights of the petitioner’s land and that no material was ever placed by ownership rights of the petitioner’s land and that no material was ever placed by respondent No. 4 to show any stay or bar against removal of encroachment. It is respondent No. 4 to show any stay or bar against removal of encroachment. It is respondent No. 4 to show any stay or bar against removal of encroachment. It is respondent No. 4 to show any stay or bar against removal of encroachment. It is that the decree has attained finality and is required to be executed in its true argued that the decree has attained finality and is required to be executed in its true that the decree has attained finality and is required to be executed in its true that the decree has attained finality and is required to be executed in its true spirit. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that in view of the On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that in view of the On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that in view of the On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that in view of the appointment of a liquidator by the NCLT, the petitioner should have approached appointment of a liquidator by the NCLT, the petitioner should have approached appointment of a liquidator by the NCLT, the petitioner should have approached appointment of a liquidator by the NCLT, the petitioner should have approached nal for necessary permission to execute the decree. the said Tribunal for necessary permission to execute the decree. nal for necessary permission to execute the decree. of this Court Findings of this Court 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. with their able assistance. 9. The learned Executing Court, while dismissing the execution The learned Executing Court, while dismissing the execution The learned Executing Court, while dismissing the execution The learned Executing Court, while dismissing the execution order dated 18.08.2025, proceeded on the assumption that since application vide order dated 18.08.2025, proceeded on the assumption that since order dated 18.08.2025, proceeded on the assumption that since application vide proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, “the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, “the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, “the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, “the Code”) were pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Code”) were pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Code”) were pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Code”) were pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh, against respondent No. 4 – M/s Best Chandigarh, against respondent No. 4 Foods Ltd., and a Resolution M/s Best Foods Ltd., and a Resolution Professional had been appointed, there was an “operation of stay” under the Code Professional had been appointed, there was an “operation of stay” under the Code Professional had been appointed, there was an “operation of stay” under the Code Professional had been appointed, there was an “operation of stay” under the Code holder. which prevented transfer of assets or delivery of possession to the decree-holder. which prevented transfer of assets or delivery of possession to the decree which prevented transfer of assets or delivery of possession to the decree 10. in C.P. A perusal of the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the NCLT in C.P. A perusal of the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the NCLT A perusal of the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the NCLT (IB) No. 117/Chd/CHD/2017 shows that the same was passed merely on an (IB) No. 117/Chd/CHD/2017 shows that the same was passed merely on an (IB) No. 117/Chd/CHD/2017 shows that the same was passed merely on an (IB) No. 117/Chd/CHD/2017 shows that the same was passed merely on an application filed by one M/s Hajura Singh Bhim Singh, an operational creditor, for application filed by one M/s Hajura Singh Bhim Singh, an operational creditor, for application filed by one M/s Hajura Singh Bhim Singh, an operational creditor, for application filed by one M/s Hajura Singh Bhim Singh, an operational creditor, for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. The said order only initiation of corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. The said order only initiation of corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. The said order only initiation of corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. The said order only ission of the petition and appointment of a Resolution Professional. records the admission of the petition and appointment of a Resolution Professional. ission of the petition and appointment of a Resolution Professional. records the adm Importantly, no express declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the Code is Importantly, no express declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the Code is Importantly, no express declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the Code is Importantly, no express declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the Code is found in the said order, nor does it record that the land in question forms part of the found in the said order, nor does it record that the land in question forms part of the found in the said order, nor does it record that the land in question forms part of the found in the said order, nor does it record that the land in question forms part of the assets of the corporate debtor. assets of the cor TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) CR-6860-2025 (O&M) -4- 11. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that a moratorium under Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that a moratorium under Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that a moratorium under Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code was in effect, its operation is confined to the assets of the Section 14 of the Code was in effect, its operation is confined to the assets of the Section 14 of the Code was in effect, its operation is confined to the assets of the Section 14 of the Code was in effect, its operation is confined to the assets of the corporate debtor. The decree under execution pertains to land which, as per the corporate debtor. The decree under execution pertains to land which, as per the corporate debtor. The decree under execution pertains to land which, as per the corporate debtor. The decree under execution pertains to land which, as per the demarcation report dated 06.06.2017, has been conclusively held to belong to the demarcation report dated 06.06.2017, has been conclusively held to belong to the demarcation report dated 06.06.2017, has been conclusively held to belong to the demarcation report dated 06.06.2017, has been conclusively held to belong to the petitioner, and the decree dated 21.10.2021, affirmed in appeal on 24.07.2025, petitioner, and the decree dated 21.10.2021, affirmed in appeal on 24.07.2025, petitioner, and the decree dated 21.10.2021, affirmed in appeal on 24.07.2025, petitioner, and the decree dated 21.10.2021, affirmed in appeal on 24.07.2025, directs removal of encroachment therefrom. The said decree neither concerns directs removal of encroachment therefrom. The said decree neither concerns directs removal of encroachment therefrom. The said decree neither concerns directs removal of encroachment therefrom. The said decree neither concerns r transfer or alienation of the corporate debtor’s property. recovery of money nor transfer or alienation of the corporate debtor’s property. recovery of money no 12. cannot extend to property Thus, the protection under Section 14 IBC cannot extend to property Thus, the protection under Section 14 IBC Thus, the protection under Section 14 IBC of a third party merely because the corporate debtor has unlawfully occupied it. of a third party merely because the corporate debtor has unlawfully occupied it. of a third party merely because the corporate debtor has unlawfully occupied it. of a third party merely because the corporate debtor has unlawfully occupied it. adjudicate title or possession disputes relating to The NCLT has no jurisdiction to adjudicate title or possession disputes relating to adjudicate title or possession disputes relating to The NCLT has no jurisdiction to party property, as such matters fall squarely within the domain of the civil third-party property, as such matters fall squarely within the domain of the civil party property, as such matters fall squarely within the domain of the civil party property, as such matters fall squarely within the domain of the civil court. 13. The reliance placed by the learned AAG for respondents on the The reliance placed by the learned AAG for respondents on the The reliance placed by the learned AAG for respondents on the The reliance placed by the learned AAG for respondents on the Anand Rao principle underlying the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anand Rao principle underlying the judgment of the Hon’bl principle underlying the judgment of the Hon’bl 2020 Korada, Resolution Professional v. M/s Varsha Fabrics (P) Ltd. & Ors., 2020 Korada, Resolution Professional v. M/s Varsha Fabrics (P) Ltd. & Ors., Korada, Resolution Professional v. M/s Varsha Fabrics (P) Ltd. & Ors., , is entirely misconceived and misplaced. In that case, the Hon’ble AIR (SC) 222, is entirely misconceived and misplaced. In that case, the Hon’ble , is entirely misconceived and misplaced. In that case, the Hon’ble , is entirely misconceived and misplaced. In that case, the Hon’ble ition Supreme Court held that once the NCLT admits a corporate insolvency petition Supreme Court held that once the NCLT admits a corporate insolvency pet Supreme Court held that once the NCLT admits a corporate insolvency pet and declares a moratorium under Section 14, civil courts and High Courts are and declares a moratorium under Section 14, civil courts and High Courts are and declares a moratorium under Section 14, civil courts and High Courts are and declares a moratorium under Section 14, civil courts and High Courts are barred from passing orders affecting the assets of the corporate debtor. The said barred from passing orders affecting the assets of the corporate debtor. The said barred from passing orders affecting the assets of the corporate debtor. The said barred from passing orders affecting the assets of the corporate debtor. The said decision was rendered in the context of property belonging to the company under decision was rendered in the context of property belonging to the company under decision was rendered in the context of property belonging to the company under decision was rendered in the context of property belonging to the company under over which the High Court of Orissa had ordered an auction. insolvency, over which the High Court of Orissa had ordered an auction. over which the High Court of Orissa had ordered an auction. 14. The facts of the present case are fundamentally different. Here, the The facts of the present case are fundamentally different. Here, the The facts of the present case are fundamentally different. Here, the The facts of the present case are fundamentally different. Here, the subject land has been found by competent civil courts to belong to the petitioner, subject land has been found by competent civil courts to belong to the petitioner, subject land has been found by competent civil courts to belong to the petitioner, subject land has been found by competent civil courts to belong to the petitioner, of encroachment by respondents, including and the decree merely directs removal of encroachment by respondents, including of encroachment by respondents, including and the decree merely directs removal respondent No. 4. The property under execution does not form part of the assets of respondent No. 4. The property under execution does not form part of the assets of respondent No. 4. The property under execution does not form part of the assets of respondent No. 4. The property under execution does not form part of the assets of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) CR-6860-2025 (O&M) -5- the corporate debtor, nor does its possession or restoration to the lawful owner the corporate debtor, nor does its possession or restoration to the lawful owner the corporate debtor, nor does its possession or restoration to the lawful owner the corporate debtor, nor does its possession or restoration to the lawful owner ending before the NCLT. interfere with any insolvency resolution process pending before the NCLT. interfere with any insolvency resolution process p interfere with any insolvency resolution process p Consequently, the ratio of Anand Rao Korada’s case (supra) Consequently, the ratio of has no application to Anand Rao Korada’s case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. the facts of the present case. 15. The learned Executing Court, therefore, acted wholly without The learned Executing Court, therefore, acted wholly without The learned Executing Court, therefore, acted wholly without The learned Executing Court, therefore, acted wholly without to execute a valid and jurisdiction and committed a patent error in refusing to execute a valid and jurisdiction and committed a patent error in refusing jurisdiction and committed a patent error in refusing subsisting decree by travelling beyond its scope. The reasoning that “no transfer of subsisting decree by travelling beyond its scope. The reasoning that “no transfer of subsisting decree by travelling beyond its scope. The reasoning that “no transfer of subsisting decree by travelling beyond its scope. The reasoning that “no transfer of assets can be made” owing to the pendency of insolvency proceedings is legally assets can be made” owing to the pendency of insolvency proceedings is legally assets can be made” owing to the pendency of insolvency proceedings is legally assets can be made” owing to the pendency of insolvency proceedings is legally for removal of untenable, as the execution sought is not for transfer of assets but for removal of untenable, as the execution sought is not for transfer of assets but untenable, as the execution sought is not for transfer of assets but encroachment and delivery of possession of the decree-holder’s land. encroachment and delivery of possession of the decree encroachment and delivery of possession of the decree Conclusion 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court is set aside. The execution 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court is set aside. The execution 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court is set aside. The execution 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court is set aside. The execution holder is restored to its original number. The Executing petition filed by the decree-holder is restored to its original number. The Executing holder is restored to its original number. The Executing petition filed by to proceed with the execution in accordance with law and to Court is directed to proceed with the execution in accordance with law and to to proceed with the execution in accordance with law and to Court is directed ensure compliance of the decree dated 21.10.2021, as affirmed by the first ensure compliance of the decree dated 21.10.2021, as affirmed by the first ensure compliance of the decree dated 21.10.2021, as affirmed by the first ensure compliance of the decree dated 21.10.2021, as affirmed by the first appellate court on 24.07.2025. appellate court on 24.07.2025. 17. 18. The present revision petition is allowed The present revision petition is allowed.
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. October 27, 2025 tripti 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document