Sanjay Gupta @ Sanjay Kumar v. Rajni Semwal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Sanjay Gupta @ Sanjay Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Rajni Semwal .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
Present:
Mr. Shailender Singh Baisla, Advocate, with Ms. Priya Bhati, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.
****
, J. (Oral) CM-6188-CII-2026 1.
This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for placing on record the true copies of zimni order dated 17.03.2026, Restoration Application i.e. CM-APPLI-201-2026 filed before Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Faridabad dated 17.03.2026 and application for setting aside ex-parte order i.e. CM-APPLI-207-2026 filed before learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Faridabad dated 19.03.2026 as Annexures P-5 to P-7 respectively. 2.
Application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 3.
Documents Annexures P-5 to P-7 are taken on record. Main Case
! " #
$%&'
*&'
",#
&'
-
#
-
-
(
#
./0 -
2 ( "
/ ,& '
!
'
4
2
6 7'
/0 6 '
/
'
% (
8
6
- (
'
- (
(
-
2-
'
%
'
- 8 (
The respondent-Rajni Semwal led ex-parte evidence and, upon appreciation thereof, the learned Rent Controller, Faridabad, allowed the eviction petition vide order dated 28.08.2025 and directed the present petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent within a period of two months. Thereafter, respondent filed the execution petition i.e. EXE-550-2025 on 11.11.2025. Then on 21.11.2025, warrant of possession was issued against the petitioner. The present petitioner moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC. Notice of the application was given to the respondent who filed the reply to the said application. Further in the execution application, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Faridabad, vide order dated 29.01.
2026, held that the execution proceedings cannot be frustrated on account of refusal or non-cooperation of the Judgment Debtor/present petitioner and directed him to remove and take back all movable articles lying inside the shop situated at the suit property.
directed to hand over vacant physical possession of the demised shop to the respondent/decree-holder.
3
:
;
/
- 7
$
*&'
- -
'
'
8 ('
- It is further submitted that the present petitioner has now moved an application for restoration of the application for setting aside the ex-parte orders and the same is still pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel further contends that in case physical possession of the demised shop is handed over to the respondent, serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, as the applications seeking stay/setting aside of the ex-parte orders are still pending consideration. 4.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper book.
5.
In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with, as the same would only delay the proceedings and entail unnecessary expenses upon the respondent.
5(
*&'
, (
(
- (
< with a direction to the
*&'
5(
#%
#
(
( -
(
! " #
$%& (
/ ( (
*&'
-
= $
'
('
> '
">/ 6*,/ 6?2 ?/,@9&
)3*?, Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No