The High Court
Case Details
(O&M) CR-7016-2025 (O&M) -1- - 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-7016-2025 (O&M) CR Reserved on: Reserved on:-12.12.2025 Pronounced on Pronounced on : 19.12.2025 Uploaded on:- 19.12.2025 Uploaded on: Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment Jitender Bhatia ....Petitioner VERSUS Bimla Ahuja and Others Bimla Ahuja and Others ....Respondents
Legal Reasoning
MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Present: Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kunal Dawar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kunal Dawar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kunal Dawar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate and Ms. Shruti Mandhotra, Advocate for respondents/caveators. Ms. Shruti Mandhotra, Advocate for respondents/caveators. Ms. Shruti Mandhotra, Advocate for respondents/caveators. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 31.05.2023 Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 31.05.2023 Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 31.05.2023 Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 31.05.2023 whereby the appeal passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby the appeal passed by the learned Additional District Judge, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, the order of the Executing Court was dismissed preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Executing Court was dismissed the order of the Executing Court was dismissed preferred by the petitioner against and the order directing the petitioner, as surety, to comply with the security and the order directing the petitioner, as surety, to comply with the security and the order directing the petitioner, as surety, to comply with the security and the order directing the petitioner, as surety, to comply with the security furnished by him was affirmed. furnished by him was affirmed. 2. The respondent is present through counsel as caveator. Learned The respondent is present through counsel as caveator. Learned The respondent is present through counsel as caveator. Learned The respondent is present through counsel as caveator. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the caveator counsel for the petitioner and respondent have learned counsel for the caveator-respondent have been heard at length and the record has been carefully perused. been heard at length and the record has been carefully perused. been heard at length and the record has been carefully perused. 3. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that during the pendency of the The facts, which are not in dispute, are that during the pendency of the The facts, which are not in dispute, are that during the pendency of the The facts, which are not in dispute, are that during the pendency of the civil suit filed by the decree-holder, an application under Order civil suit filed by the decree 38 Rule 5 CPC was holder, an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC was TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.19 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-7016-2025 (O&M) -2- - moved. While disposing of the said application, the Trial Court, instead of ordering moved. While disposing of the said application, the Trial Court, instead of ordering moved. While disposing of the said application, the Trial Court, instead of ordering moved. While disposing of the said application, the Trial Court, instead of ordering attachment of the property of the defendant, directed the defendant to furnish attachment of the property of the defendant, directed the defendant to furnish attachment of the property of the defendant, directed the defendant to furnish attachment of the property of the defendant, directed the defendant to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court. In compliance thereof, the present security to the satisfaction of the Court. In compliance thereof, the pres security to the satisfaction of the Court. In compliance thereof, the pres security to the satisfaction of the Court. In compliance thereof, the pres petitioner voluntarily furnished a security/surety bond undertaking to secure the petitioner voluntarily furnished a security/surety bond undertaking to secure the petitioner voluntarily furnished a security/surety bond undertaking to secure the petitioner voluntarily furnished a security/surety bond undertaking to secure the amount mentioned therein. Subsequently, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, amount mentioned therein. Subsequently, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, amount mentioned therein. Subsequently, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, amount mentioned therein. Subsequently, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, holder, wherein the Executing execution proceedings were initiated by the decree-holder, wherein the Executing execution proceedings were initiated by the decree execution proceedings were initiated by the decree the petitioner, being the surety, to comply with the obligation Court directed the petitioner, being the surety, to comply with the obligation the petitioner, being the surety, to comply with the obligation Court directed arising from the security bond. arising from the security bond. 4. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the judgment stage order passed under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC operates only at the pre-judgment stage order passed under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC operates only at the pre order passed under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC operates only at the pre hat once the suit stood decreed, the said order lost its efficacy and the and that once the suit stood decreed, the said order lost its efficacy and the hat once the suit stood decreed, the said order lost its efficacy and the hat once the suit stood decreed, the said order lost its efficacy and the Executing Court could not proceed against the surety. The said contention is Executing Court could not proceed against the surety. The said contention is Executing Court could not proceed against the surety. The said contention is Executing Court could not proceed against the surety. The said contention is wholly misconceived and cannot be accepted. wholly misconceived and cannot be accepted. 5. secure the Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is a preventive provision intended to secure the Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is a preventive provision intended to Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is a preventive provision intended to fruits of a possible decree. Where, instead of ordering attachment before judgment, fruits of a possible decree. Where, instead of ordering attachment before judgment, fruits of a possible decree. Where, instead of ordering attachment before judgment, fruits of a possible decree. Where, instead of ordering attachment before judgment, the Court directs furnishing of security and a security/surety bond is furnished the Court directs furnishing of security and a security/surety bond is furnished the Court directs furnishing of security and a security/surety bond is furnished the Court directs furnishing of security and a security/surety bond is furnished pursuant thereto, the bond stands as a substitute for attachment. The purpose of pursuant thereto, the bond stands as a substitute for attachment. The purpose o pursuant thereto, the bond stands as a substitute for attachment. The purpose o pursuant thereto, the bond stands as a substitute for attachment. The purpose o such security is to ensure satisfaction of the decree in the event the suit is such security is to ensure satisfaction of the decree in the event the suit is such security is to ensure satisfaction of the decree in the event the suit is such security is to ensure satisfaction of the decree in the event the suit is ultimately decreed. Merely because the suit has been decreed does not render the ultimately decreed. Merely because the suit has been decreed does not render the ultimately decreed. Merely because the suit has been decreed does not render the ultimately decreed. Merely because the suit has been decreed does not render the judgment security bond otiose or unenforceable. What comes to an end is the pre-judgment security bond otiose or unenforceable. What comes to an end is the pre security bond otiose or unenforceable. What comes to an end is the pre roceedings, not the substantive obligation undertaken by the surety. stage of the proceedings, not the substantive obligation undertaken by the surety. roceedings, not the substantive obligation undertaken by the surety. roceedings, not the substantive obligation undertaken by the surety. 6. Once the suit is decreed, the security furnished pursuant to an order Once the suit is decreed, the security furnished pursuant to an order Once the suit is decreed, the security furnished pursuant to an order Once the suit is decreed, the security furnished pursuant to an order holder. under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC survives and enures to the benefit of the decree-holder. under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC survives and enures to the benefit of the decree under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC survives and enures to the benefit of the decree liability of the surety arises in terms of the bond At the stage of execution, the liability of the surety arises in terms of the bond liability of the surety arises in terms of the bond At the stage of execution, the furnished by him. Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically furnished by him. Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically furnished by him. Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically furnished by him. Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically empowers the Executing Court to execute the decree against a person who has empowers the Executing Court to execute the decree against a person who has empowers the Executing Court to execute the decree against a person who has empowers the Executing Court to execute the decree against a person who has TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.19 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-7016-2025 (O&M) -3- - decree. For this purpose, such become liable as a surety for the performance of the decree. For this purpose, such become liable as a surety for the performance of the become liable as a surety for the performance of the surety is deemed to be a party to the proceedings and execution can be levied surety is deemed to be a party to the proceedings and execution can be levied surety is deemed to be a party to the proceedings and execution can be levied surety is deemed to be a party to the proceedings and execution can be levied against him to the extent of his liability under the bond. against him to the extent of his liability under the bond. against him to the extent of his liability under the bond. 7. The argument that the Executing Court must first exhaust all remedies The argument that the Executing Court must first exhaust all remedies The argument that the Executing Court must first exhaust all remedies The argument that the Executing Court must first exhaust all remedies against the principal judgment debtor before proceeding against the surety also has incipal judgment-debtor before proceeding against the surety also has debtor before proceeding against the surety also has holder to proceed no merit. There is no inflexible rule of law requiring the decree-holder to proceed no merit. There is no inflexible rule of law requiring the decree no merit. There is no inflexible rule of law requiring the decree debtor alone in the first instance. The extent and manner of against the judgment-debtor alone in the first instance. The extent and manner of debtor alone in the first instance. The extent and manner of against the judgment ety are governed by the terms of the security bond. Once default liability of the surety are governed by the terms of the security bond. Once default ety are governed by the terms of the security bond. Once default liability of the sur holder is entitled to invoke occurs and the decree remains unsatisfied, the decree-holder is entitled to invoke occurs and the decree remains unsatisfied, the decree occurs and the decree remains unsatisfied, the decree the security furnished and seek execution against the surety in accordance with the security furnished and seek execution against the surety in accordance with the security furnished and seek execution against the surety in accordance with the security furnished and seek execution against the surety in accordance with law. 8. , the Executing Court has not gone behind the In the present case, the Executing Court has not gone behind the , the Executing Court has not gone behind the In the present case decree nor has it enlarged the scope of the decree. It has merely enforced the decree nor has it enlarged the scope of the decree. It has merely enforced the decree nor has it enlarged the scope of the decree. It has merely enforced the decree nor has it enlarged the scope of the decree. It has merely enforced the obligation voluntarily undertaken by the petitioner while furnishing security in lieu obligation voluntarily undertaken by the petitioner while furnishing security in lieu obligation voluntarily undertaken by the petitioner while furnishing security in lieu obligation voluntarily undertaken by the petitioner while furnishing security in lieu learned Appellate Court has of attachment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. The learned Appellate Court has of attachment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. The of attachment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. The correctly appreciated the legal position and has rightly affirmed the order of the correctly appreciated the legal position and has rightly affirmed the order of the correctly appreciated the legal position and has rightly affirmed the order of the correctly appreciated the legal position and has rightly affirmed the order of the Executing Court. No jurisdictional error, perversity, or illegality warranting Executing Court. No jurisdictional error, perversity, or illegality warranting Executing Court. No jurisdictional error, perversity, or illegality warranting Executing Court. No jurisdictional error, perversity, or illegality warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is mad interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is mad 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present civil revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. present civil revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. present civil revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 10.
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 December 19, 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.19 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document