CIVIL REVISION NO.4361 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 16, 2008 Bhupinder Singh Waraich .....Petitioner VERSUS Surjit Kaur and another. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Arun Palli, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Nitin Thatai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Executing Court in adjourning the execution petition sine-die and consigning it to record by holding that it be taken up after the transfer application filed by the respondent/judgment-debtors is disposed of by the High Court. The execution application was filed on the basis of a decree dated 27.8.2001 passed in civil suit No.148 of 10.6.2000 by decree-holder Bhupinder Singh Waraich. Objections were filed by CIVIL REVISION NO.4361 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: respondent/judgment-debtors on 23.4.2005 for dismissal of the said execution application. It is urged that the impugned decree is not executable as it is secured by decree-holder by practicing fraud on the judgment-debtors. A suit was also filed by the judgment-debtors alleging fraud and for setting-aside the decree under execution, but the same was dismissed on 20.11.2004 by the then Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala. Aggrieved against the same, the Judgment- debtors had preferred an appeal which was pending before Smt.Sukhvinder Kaur, the then Addl.District Judge, Kapurthala. The judgment-debtors then filed an application before this court for transfer of the said appeal to some other court. This court stayed the proceedings pending before the Appellate Court at Kapurthala. Due to this, the execution application of the decree under challenge before the Appellate Court was adjourned sine-die by the Executing Court. It may be noticed that earlier execution application was consigned to record room vide order dated 2.3.2002. The Executing Court again adjourned the execution application sine-die by noticing that registration of a sale deed by Judgment-debtors is premature and to be taken up for disposal of the transfer application. The petitioner filed review/recall of this order and for deciding the execution application, but the same was dismissed though after observing that pendency of transfer petition advanced as reason to adjourn the execution application sine-die was error apparent on record as it stood decided by that time. CIVIL REVISION NO.4361 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: Mr.Arun Palli while appearing for the petitioner would point out that the appeal, which was pending before Addl.District Judge at Kapurthala, has since been transferred to a court at Jalandhar. Accordingly, the stay of the proceedings before the Appellate Courts as ordered by this courts is no more in operation. The application for review of the order adjourning the execution application sine-die, which was moved as noticed above, was declined on the ground that the order under review would not reveal any error apparent on the face of record. The issue now is short and crisp. Apparently, the execution proceedings were adjourned sine die and consigned to record, basically on the ground that the transfer application has been moved before this court and the proceedings before the Appellate Court were stayed. It was appropriate for the Executing Court to await the outcome of the transfer application before directing execution of the decree which was under challenge and was to be adjudicated by the Appellate Court. Now the appeal has been transferred to a court at Jalandhar. Since there is no stay now for the Appellate Court to proceed with the appeal, it would accordingly adjudicate the said appeal. The question now to be seen is if the execution, which has been filed, still is required to be kept pending. In other words, can such an execution application be adjourned sine- die to await the outcome of the appeal?. Obviously, the execution proceedings are required to be continued, unless these are stayed by the Appellate Court for any valid reasons, which may be urged by the judgment-debtors. In fact, the Executing Court was directed to CIVIL REVISION NO.4361 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: continue with the execution application vide order passed by this court on 2.5.2008. It is submitted before me that the Executing Court thereafter is continuing with the execution application. Mr.Puneet Jindal representing the respondent/judgment-debtors before me made submissions on merits in regard to the plea raised in the appeal which is pending. It is not for this court to go into the merits of the controversy whether the decree under execution is valid or not. The respondent/judgment-debtors have already challenged the sale, but have remained unsuccessful before the trial court. They would raise all the pleas available to them in the appeal, which is now pending before a court at Jalandhar. It would be for the said Appellate Court to go into the validity of the assertions made and then arrive at any appropriate decision. This court rather should not express any opinion on merits. The only consideration is to see if there is any justification for the Executing Court to adjourn the execution petition sine-die. There is substance in the submission made by Mr.Palli on the basis of observations made in the case of M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., 2005(1) RCR (Civil) 212, when he says that mere preferring of an appeal does not operate as stay on the decree or order appealed against nor on the proceedings in the court below. It is further noticed in this case that a prayer for grant of stay of the proceedings or on the execution of decree or order appealed against has to be specifically made to the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court has a discretion to grant an order of stay or to refuse the same. Accordingly, there would no justification on the part of Executing CIVIL REVISION NO.4361 OF 2007 :{ 5 }: Court to adjourn the execution sine-die now. The present revision petition is, thus, disposed of with the direction to the Executing Court to continue with the execution petition as already directed. The respondent/judgment-debtors would be at liberty to press for any relief including the relief of stay of execution in pending appeal before the court at Jalandhar. The respondents would be well within their rights to raise all the pleas available to them before the Executing Court to challenge the execution petition. July 16,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE