C.R. No. 2285 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2285 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.5.2010 ... Gurpal Singh ................Petitioner vs. Gurwinder Kaur .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Sh.D.S. Malwai, Advocate for the respondent. ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) Plaintiff -Gurpal Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs.16,36,777/- against defendant-respondent Gurwinder Kaur. That suit was decreed ex parte on 9.4.2009. The defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. An objection was moved on 10.10.2009 before the Executing Court regarding staying the execution of the decree. Learned Executing Court stayed the execution of decree vide order dated 23.2.2010. Feeling dissatisfied with the said order dated 23.2.2010, the C.R. No. 2285 of 2010 -2- present revision petition has been filed. The submission made by counsel for the appellant is two fold. Firstly, that the Executing Court could not stay the execution of decree un-conditionally. To support this contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the authorities reported as Lyallpur Rubber Mills vs. Sri Tulsi Industries and another 2007 (5) RCR (Civil) 296 and Ramesh Chawla vs. Ranjit Singh 1998 (3) RCR (Civil) 43 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). The second contention raised by counsel for the revisionist is that the trial Court should be directed to decide the case expeditiously, since heavy amount is involved. Counsel for the respondent has not opposed the prayer for expeditious disposal. However, he has contended that since the decree is ex parte, as such the learned Executing Court has rightly stayed the proceedings. It is further contended that it is not the requirement of law to call for surety in every case. I have heard counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case. So, far as Lyallpur Rubber Mills' case (Supra), is concerned, in that authority it has been held that Executing Court can stay execution of decree for a reasonable time only in two circumstances (i) to approach the same court which passed the decree and to get an order of stay of operation of decree; (ii) to enable a party to file an appeal and get order of stay from Appellate Court if time allowed for filing of such appeal has not expired. It is further held that if appeal has already been filed before the Appellate Court C.R. No. 2285 of 2010 -3- then Executing Court has no jurisdiction to pass order for stay of execution of decree. That authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case. However, in Ramesh Chawla's case (Supra), this Court has held that where the stay of ex parte decree is ordered, it should not be unconditional incase of money decree. So, in these circumstances, execution of decree has already been stayed but that order would be operative if the defendant- respondent furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Executing Court within one month from today. So far as prayer for early hearing is concerned, the trial Court is directed to decide the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( K.C. Puri ) 26.5.2010 Judge chugh