Satpal Dhiman v. Deepak Jain

CR No.5648 of 2025 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5648 of 2025 Date of decision: February 6th, 2026 Satpal Dhiman .....Petitioner

Versus

Deepak Jain .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:

Mr. Hans Raj Verma, Advocate for Mr. N.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Rajni Bala Rohilla, Advocate for Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1.

On 22.08.2025, a coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order:

"Present:

Mr. Durga Dutt Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jagadhari, in Execution No.36 of 2025 vide which the property jointly owned by the petitioner has been put to auction for 01.09.2025.

Today, counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner was in jail but now he was released on bail and he wants to compromise with the decree holder, therefore, execution of the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 may kindly be stayed.

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.02.06 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CR No.5648 of 2025 -2Notice of motion for 13.09.2025 for the purpose of compromise only. Case to be put up in National Lok Adalat.

In the meanwhile, execution of the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) shall remain stayed.

AUGUST 22, 2025"

A perusal of the above would show that execution of the impugned order was stayed only on the ground that the petitioner wanted to compromise the matter. The subsequent orders passed before the Daily Lok Adalat would show that none had appeared on 12.11.2025 and also on 02.12.2025 and on 20.01.2026, the counsel for the petitioner had stated that he has instructions not to settle the matter. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for an adjournment without filing an adjournment slip. 3.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the said prayer. 4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the present petition be disposed of but liberty granted to the petitioner to revive the same after complying with the order dated 22.08.2025.

5.

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to revive the same after complying with the order dated 22.08.2025. February 6th, 2026 (VIKAS BAHL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.02.06 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh