Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajat Saini vs Seema Singh And Another on 16 October, 2025
CR-7422-2025 -1- 128 2026:PHHE 148939 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7422-2025 DECIDED ON: 16.10.2025 RAJATSAIND 2 2 2 2 2 2 eae PETITIONER VERSUS SEEMA SINGH AND ANOTHER --_~_LEL_i»_..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Dr. R.N. Bharati, Advocate and Mr. Kunal Bharati, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saransh Sabharwal, Advocate for the respondent No.1. MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)
1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the orders dated 16.09.2025 and 29.09.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner in the execution proceedings were dismissed, and the application for stay of execution was also declined.
2. The brief facts, as are necessary for the disposal of the present petition, are that the respondent--plaintiff instituted a summary suit under Order 37 CPC on 09.02.2022 for recovery of money. On the same day, the learned trial court ordered issuance of notice to the defendant. The notice was issued under Order 5 Rule 3 CPC, and as per the petitioner, this shows that the court treated the case as an ordinary civil suit rather than as one under Order 37 CPC.
POONAM NEGI 2025.10.16 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7422-2025 -2-3. It is submitted that the summons issued were not in Form No. 4, Appendix B as mandated under Order 37 Rule 2(2) CPC. Subsequently, another notice was issued purporting to be under Order 37 Rule 3(3) CPC, but the same was not accompanied by any affidavit or documents, as required under law. The petitioner contends that the entire procedure adopted was irregular and contrary to the mandatory provisions of Order 37 CPC.
4. As per Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC, the defendant is required to enter appearance and file an application for leave to defend within ten days from the service of the summons. However, in the present case, no valid summons under Order 37 were ever served, and the petitioner was therefore under the bona fide impression that the matter was an ordinary civil suit. Subsequently, the learned trial court declined leave to defend and passed a judgment and decree dated 06.01.2023 against the petitioner without passing any specific order on the application for leave to defend.
5. The said decree, according to the petitioner, is null and void, having been passed in violation of the mandatory procedure of Order 37 CPC. The petitioner preferred a civil appeal, which is admittedly pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula.
6. Meanwhile, the respondent--decree holder initiated execution proceedings before the Civil Court. The petitioner claims that no proper service was effected upon him in the execution petition, and he came to know of the same only incidentally when he appeared in another case. Upon appearance, he filed objections to the maintainability and executability of the decree, which were dismissed vide order dated 16.09.2025, followed by the rejection of his stay application vide order dated 29.09.2025.
POONAM NEGI 2025.10.16 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7422-2025 -3-7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed both the impugned orders on the ground that:
(i). The decree sought to be executed is not executable in law, being passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of Order 37 CPC.
(ii). The trial court never issued summons in Form No. 4, Appendix B, and therefore, the decree obtained without compliance with Order 37 Rule 2(2) CPC is void ab initio.
(iii). The petitioner's objections could not have been brushed aside on the ground of "finality of decree," as a decree which is void for want of jurisdiction or violation of mandatory procedure can be challenged at any stage, even in execution proceedings.
(iv). The executing court failed to appreciate that the appeal against the decree is pending before the appellate court and should have stayed the execution proceedings till the disposal of the appeal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the present revision petition is wholly devoid of merit. It is contended that all objections now raised by the petitioner were already considered by the trial court in its judgment and decree dated 06.01.2023, wherein it was specifically recorded that the defendant had received the summons under Order 37 Rule 2 CPC on 11.03.2022, along with the plaint and documents relied upon by the plaintiff.
9. It is further pointed out that the petitioner had duly appeared and received the summons under Rule 3 Order 37 CPC and that no objection regarding non-compliance of procedure or non-attachment of documents was raised at that time. The executing court, therefore, rightly held that the POONAM NEGI 2025.10.16 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7422-2025 -4- objections filed at such a belated stage, after nearly three years of passing of the decree, were an attempt to stall the execution proceedings.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with care, this Court finds no error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the impugned orders.
11. From the perusal of the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2023, it is evident that all the issues now raised by the petitioner were specifically addressed by the trial court. The said judgment records that the defendant had received the summons along with the plaint and supporting documents and that no objection was raised regarding their form or validity at the relevant time.
12. Once such findings have been returned in the main judgment and decree, the executing court cannot re-open or re-examine those issues in collateral proceedings. It is well settled that the executing court cannot go behind the decree or question its correctness on grounds which were or could have been raised before the trial or appellate court. Further, the pendency of an appeal does not, by itself, operate as a stay of execution under Section 96 or Order 41 Rule 5 CPC. It is for the appellate court to grant a specific stay if sufficient cause is shown. The executing court rightly observed that in the absence of any stay order from the appellate court, it was duty-bound to proceed with the execution in accordance with law.
13. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the alleged non- issuance of summons in the prescribed form cannot invalidate the decree at the execution stage. The purpose of Order 37 is to ensure expeditious POONAM NEGI 2025.10.16 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7422-2025 -5- disposal of suits; its procedural prescriptions cannot be used to indefinitely delay execution once the decree has attained finality and is under appeal.
14. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned orders dated 16.09.2025 and 29.09.2025 suffer from no perversity, illegality, or procedural irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
15. The learned executing court has rightly held that it has no jurisdiction to go behind the decree, and that the objections raised by the petitioner pertain to matters already adjudicated in the judgment and decree itself. The court has further rightly declined to stay the execution proceedings, as mere pendency of an appeal is not a ground for automatic stay.
16. The petitioner's plea that the decree is void on account of non- compliance with Order 37 CPC is untenable in law, particularly when the same grounds are already the subject matter of adjudication in the pending appeal. The remedy of the petitioner lies before the appellate court, not by way of collateral challenge in execution or revision.
17. No prejudice has been demonstrated to have been caused to the petitioner by the impugned orders. The executing court has acted well within its jurisdiction and in accordance with settled principles of law.
18. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed.
19. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU) 16.10.2025 JUDGE Poonam Negi Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No POONAM NEGI 2025.10.16 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document