Rajjo Dharmendra Sikka @ Tony Sikka And Ors v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) Rohit Tripathi

1. Heard Shri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. The instant civil revision has been preferred under Section 115 CPC the order dated 29.11.2025, passed in Execution Case assailing No.28/2024, whereby the Executing Court while allowing the application moved by the decree holder has permitted the locks of the premises to be opened for due execution of the decree of the eviction/possession.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the appeal preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and decree dated

11.03.2024 is engaging the attention of the first appellate Court. While the said appeal was pending at the behest of the revisionist, certain applications were filed before the Executing Court. One by the decree holder for opening the locks to facilitate the execution of the decree and the other was filed by the judgment-debtor/revisionist seeking stay of the orders on the premise that the appeal is pending.

4. It is urged that two applications were considered and by means of the order dated 29.11.2025, the application filed by the revisionist seeking deferment/stay of the execution proceedings on the ground that the appeal is pending was rejected. The other application moved by the decree holder bearing Paper No.C-21 upon which the opportunity to file objections was closed and thereafter in the post lunch session, the said application permitting to breaking open the locks for execution of the decree was 2 CLRE No. 56 of 2025 passed. It is this order which is under challenge in the instant revision.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that no opportunity of hearing was granted while passing the impugned order dated 29.11.2025. It was also urged that an opportunity to file objections under Section 47 CPC has also been turned down. Since, the decree in question entails serious civil consequences, hence, in the given facts and circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Executing Court to have waited/deferred the proceedings till such time the appeal was heard.

6. It is urged that by depriving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist, the Executing Court while passing the order has committed a grave jurisdictional error, which if allowed to stand, will occasion failure of justice, hence, the impugned order is per-se bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

7. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav and another v. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and others, (1982) 3 SCC 484.

8. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.

9. At the outset, it may be noted that the plaintiff of Regular Suit No.1263/2017 had instituted a suit praying for decree of possession, damages as well as the permanent injunction. Upon due contest, the suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 11.03.2024.

10. The record indicates that the said decree was put into execution by the decree holder which came to be registered as Execution Case No.28/2024. In the meantime, the revisionist preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2024, however, the same was barred by limitation. Hence, it was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Notices were issued on the said application and thereafter vide order dated 17.01.2025, the first Appellate Court condoned the delay and directed the parties to appear before the appellate Court for admission of the appeal. 3 CLRE No. 56 of 2025

11. The revisionist in Paragraph-5 of the said affidavit, filed in support of the application for interim relief has stated that the appeal of the revisionist was admitted on 13.02.2025 and the lower Court record was summoned, but the application for interim relief is yet to be decided.

12. At this stage, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the revisionist as to what is status of the appeal to which it has been answered that it is listed in the month of January, 2026, however, he does not have a specific date, in this regard.

13. The core contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that while on one hand, the appeal of the revisionist is pending and on the other hand the Executing Court is proceeding with hurry and in case, if the proceedings were not stayed, the decree would be executed, which would result in grave injustice to the revisionist and moreover his appeal would also be rendered infructuous. Thus, in the given circumstances, the dictum of the Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav (supra) was squarely applicable, which has escaped the attention of the Executing Court, which has resulted in passing of the impugned order.

14. This Court finds that the said contention is absolutely misconceived for more than one reasons. It is an undisputed fact that the appeal of the revisionist is pending adjudication and nothing has been brought on record to indicate as to how the said appeal after having been admitted is being taken forward. There is nothing on record to indicate as to whether the revisionist made any attempt before the first appellate Court regarding disposal of his application for interim relief.

15. A specific query was put to Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist to point out whether any particular provision, as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits the Executing Court to stay its hands on the execution merely on the ground that the appeal is pending. However, nothing could be pointed out.

16. Be that as it may, the dictum of the Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav (supra) is also not applicable to the case at hand. An endeavour should have been made by the revisionist to approach the appellate Court but apparently, there is nothing on record to indicate that any such effort 4 CLRE No. 56 of 2025 made. On the strength of the aforesaid decision, the Executing Court could not have stayed the proceedings, merely because an appeal is pending as a pending appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of the execution proceeding.

17. A feeble submission was made that the revisionist has been deprived of his opportunity of filing objection under Section 47 CPC, this too is also misconceived for the reason that there is no opportunity envisaged in law, which is to be granted to a revisionist/a party, to file objection under Section 47 CPC. It is a right of a party to exercise and in case if such objections are moved naturally the Court would consider and decide it in accordance with law. Thus, to state that the Court has to invite objection under Section 47 CPC is per-se and not within the scheme of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

18. Since there is nothing on record as already noticed above as to how the matter has been taken forward in appeal and the Executing Court has merely proceeded as required for the purpose of execution of decree, it cannot be said that there is an jurisdictional error committed by the Executing Court in passing of the impugned order.

19. Shri Tripathi has vehemently urged that the revisionist had moved an application for deferment and the same has not been considered by the Executing Court. The above submission is only noted to be rejected.

20. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the order dated

29.11.2025 is an interlocutory order by which no rights are adjudicated and the order passed is only in aid of execution proceedings, hence, the Court does not find that there is any merit in this revision, which is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.2,500/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court within a period of two weeks from today. December 11, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. The instant civil revision has been preferred under Section 115 CPC the order dated 29.11.2025, passed in Execution Case assailing No.28/2024, whereby the Executing Court while allowing the application moved by the decree holder has permitted the locks of the premises to be opened for due execution of the decree of the eviction/possession.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the appeal preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and decree dated

11.03.2024 is engaging the attention of the first appellate Court. While the said appeal was pending at the behest of the revisionist, certain applications were filed before the Executing Court. One by the decree holder for opening the locks to facilitate the execution of the decree and the other was filed by the judgment-debtor/revisionist seeking stay of the orders on the premise that the appeal is pending.

4. It is urged that two applications were considered and by means of the order dated 29.11.2025, the application filed by the revisionist seeking deferment/stay of the execution proceedings on the ground that the appeal is pending was rejected. The other application moved by the decree holder bearing Paper No.C-21 upon which the opportunity to file objections was closed and thereafter in the post lunch session, the said application permitting to breaking open the locks for execution of the decree was 2 CLRE No. 56 of 2025 passed. It is this order which is under challenge in the instant revision.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that no opportunity of hearing was granted while passing the impugned order dated 29.11.2025. It was also urged that an opportunity to file objections under Section 47 CPC has also been turned down. Since, the decree in question entails serious civil consequences, hence, in the given facts and circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Executing Court to have waited/deferred the proceedings till such time the appeal was heard.

6. It is urged that by depriving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist, the Executing Court while passing the order has committed a grave jurisdictional error, which if allowed to stand, will occasion failure of justice, hence, the impugned order is per-se bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

7. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav and another v. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and others, (1982) 3 SCC 484.

8. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.

9. At the outset, it may be noted that the plaintiff of Regular Suit No.1263/2017 had instituted a suit praying for decree of possession, damages as well as the permanent injunction. Upon due contest, the suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 11.03.2024.

10. The record indicates that the said decree was put into execution by the decree holder which came to be registered as Execution Case No.28/2024. In the meantime, the revisionist preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2024, however, the same was barred by limitation. Hence, it was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Notices were issued on the said application and thereafter vide order dated 17.01.2025, the first Appellate Court condoned the delay and directed the parties to appear before the appellate Court for admission of the appeal. 3 CLRE No. 56 of 2025

11. The revisionist in Paragraph-5 of the said affidavit, filed in support of the application for interim relief has stated that the appeal of the revisionist was admitted on 13.02.2025 and the lower Court record was summoned, but the application for interim relief is yet to be decided.

12. At this stage, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the revisionist as to what is status of the appeal to which it has been answered that it is listed in the month of January, 2026, however, he does not have a specific date, in this regard.

13. The core contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that while on one hand, the appeal of the revisionist is pending and on the other hand the Executing Court is proceeding with hurry and in case, if the proceedings were not stayed, the decree would be executed, which would result in grave injustice to the revisionist and moreover his appeal would also be rendered infructuous. Thus, in the given circumstances, the dictum of the Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav (supra) was squarely applicable, which has escaped the attention of the Executing Court, which has resulted in passing of the impugned order.

14. This Court finds that the said contention is absolutely misconceived for more than one reasons. It is an undisputed fact that the appeal of the revisionist is pending adjudication and nothing has been brought on record to indicate as to how the said appeal after having been admitted is being taken forward. There is nothing on record to indicate as to whether the revisionist made any attempt before the first appellate Court regarding disposal of his application for interim relief.

15. A specific query was put to Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist to point out whether any particular provision, as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits the Executing Court to stay its hands on the execution merely on the ground that the appeal is pending. However, nothing could be pointed out.

16. Be that as it may, the dictum of the Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav (supra) is also not applicable to the case at hand. An endeavour should have been made by the revisionist to approach the appellate Court but apparently, there is nothing on record to indicate that any such effort 4 CLRE No. 56 of 2025 made. On the strength of the aforesaid decision, the Executing Court could not have stayed the proceedings, merely because an appeal is pending as a pending appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of the execution proceeding.

17. A feeble submission was made that the revisionist has been deprived of his opportunity of filing objection under Section 47 CPC, this too is also misconceived for the reason that there is no opportunity envisaged in law, which is to be granted to a revisionist/a party, to file objection under Section 47 CPC. It is a right of a party to exercise and in case if such objections are moved naturally the Court would consider and decide it in accordance with law. Thus, to state that the Court has to invite objection under Section 47 CPC is per-se and not within the scheme of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

18. Since there is nothing on record as already noticed above as to how the matter has been taken forward in appeal and the Executing Court has merely proceeded as required for the purpose of execution of decree, it cannot be said that there is an jurisdictional error committed by the Executing Court in passing of the impugned order.

19. Shri Tripathi has vehemently urged that the revisionist had moved an application for deferment and the same has not been considered by the Executing Court. The above submission is only noted to be rejected.

20. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the order dated

29.11.2025 is an interlocutory order by which no rights are adjudicated and the order passed is only in aid of execution proceedings, hence, the Court does not find that there is any merit in this revision, which is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.2,500/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court within a period of two weeks from today. December 11, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench