IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 28.09.2010 C.R.No.6293 of 2010 (O&M) Darshan Singh Gill ...Petitioner Versus Gurdev Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. A.K.Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by the learned Executing Court on 21.08.2010 staying the execution proceedings in view of the fact that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 on behalf of the judgment debtor is pending to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. The plaintiff-petitioner has obtained an ex parte judgment and decree dated 12.04.2008 for removal of platform in front of the house of defendant alleging the same to be in a public street. The defendant has filed an application for setting of the said judgment and decree, which is pending consideration. Since the petitioner obtained an order for removal of the said platform by Police force, the judgment-debtor filed an application for stay of execution, which has been allowed by the Executing Court. While granting stay for removal of platform, the Executing Court has ordered that only two effective adjournments of one month each shall be given to the C.R.No.6293 of 2010 (O&M) judgment-debtor to lead evidence, so that he may not misuse the concession given by the Court. Since the decree in favour of the petitioner is an ex parte decree and an application for setting aside the said ex parte decree is pending, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Executing Court staying the execution of such decree. To balance the equities, the Court has granted two opportunities to lead evidence in a limited time-frame. Therefore, I do not find any ground for interference in the order passed by the learned Executing Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. 28.09.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2