C.R. No. 1366 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 1366 of 2008 Date of decision: March 3,2009 M/s A.A. And A Agro Limited ..Petitioner Versus Smt. Mini Gautam wife of Shri Dinesh Gautam etc. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) The petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 15.12.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon whereby on application filed by Mini Gautam, respondent No.1/objector, the execution of the ex. parte decree dated 6.4.2005 has been stayed during the pendency of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the aforesaid ex. parte decree. The brief facts which led to filing of this revision petition are that an ex parte decree dated 6.4.2005 for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 7.4.1994 was passed in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 filed two applications before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon i.e., an application for setting aside ex. parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and application under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead the aforesaid applicant as respondent being assignee of the property on the basis of sale deed dated 28.2.2005. Along with this application, the aforesaid respondent No.1 also filed application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for staying the execution of the ex. parte decree during the pendency of the C.R. No. 1366 of 2008 2 application for setting aside ex. parte decree dated 6.4.2005. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 15.12.2007 held that in case the execution is not stayed and is allowed to take place, the petition filed by respondent No.1 under Order 9 Rule 13 will become infructuous and therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, it was directed that execution of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 6.4.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.277 of 7.4.1997 shall remain stayed till the decision of the aforesaid petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has no right to challenge the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. as he is a stranger to the suit and moreover, he has purchased the property during the pendency of the suit. In my view, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived at this stage as the aforesaid arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner can only be considered in the main applications filed under 9 Rule 13 and Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. On equity, the court has found that it will be in the fitness of things, if the dispossession of the petitioner is stayed during the pendency of these applications. There is no dispute that the executing Court has the jurisdiction to exercise its discretion. I find no fault with the aforesaid discretion exercised by the trial Court. Dismissed. March 3, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE