CR/6850/2026 of RAVINDER PAL AND ANOTHER Vs BALDEV KRISHAN AND OTHERS on 11 September 2026

IN THE

Ravinder Pal a Baldev Krishan

CORAM:

H

Present: M

DEEPAK GUPTA

Th Court, have in dated 13.08.2 whereby their final decree in

2. Le preliminary d petitioners hav Section 151 C unless the fin prejudice in th succeeds.

3. Th acceptance in

4. Th petitioners ha appear up to production of after impositio

Page N: 1 of Total 3 E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND

C D

nd another

Versus n and others

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK G Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate for t **** TA, J. he petitioners, defendants No nvoked the revisional jurisdictio 026 passed by the learned Civ r application seeking stay of the the partition suit has been dism earned counsel for the petiti decree of partition was pass ve already moved an applicatio CPC seeking setting aside of the nal decree proceedings are sta he event their application unde he submission, though attract the facts and circumstances of t he impugned order records that d appeared in the suit on 01.07 o 08.05.2025. They failed to documents despite having avai on of costs, whereafter they we

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R-6850-2026 Date of Decision: 11.09.2026

...Petitioners

...Respondents UPTA the petitioners. .1 and 2 before the learned on of this Court to assail the o vil Judge (Junior Division), Sang proceedings for preparation of missed. ioners submits that an ex p ed on 06.04.2026 and that n under Order IX Rule 13 read w e said decree. It is contended ayed, the petitioners would su er Order IX Rule 13 CPC ultima ive at first blush, does not m the present case. t, according to the respondents, 7.2023 and thereafter continue file reply to the application iled several opportunities and e ere proceeded against ex parte.

trial rder grur, f the arte the with that uffer ately merit , the d to for even The

learned trial C application un has been fram matter has bee

5. Th the ex parte competent Co such an applic right to stall th particularly wh their participa granted by the

6. Th presently pen measurement submission of partition. The required to pla Court.

7. M exercise of the has remained opportunities claim an auto under Order I petitioners wo Court.

8. At final decree p regarding the hands also can when the Fie

Page N: 2 of Total 3 ourt has further recorded that t nder Order IX Rule 13 CPC and, med regarding the validity of th en fixed for the petitioners' evid hus, the petitioners are not rem preliminary decree is already ourt in proceedings under Order cation cannot, as a matter of co he consequential proceedings a hen the record reflects that the ation in the suit and their failure e trial Court. he learned trial Court has al nding for preparation of the of the property by the Fi f a report regarding the factua Court has specifically recorde ace the factual position and pro More importantly, the conduct e discretionary revisional jurisdic absent after participating in t cannot, merely by subsequent omatic suspension of all conse X Rule 13 CPC has to be adjud ould be entitled to establish t t this stage, however, no groun proceedings altogether. The obs petitioners not having approa nnot be said to be wholly irrele eld Kanungo went to the spo

the petitioners have already filed after hearing the parties, an is e ex parte preliminary decree. dence. mediless. Their grievance regard pending consideration before r IX Rule 13 CPC. The mere filin ourse, confer upon the petitione arising from the preliminary dec eir ex parte status was preceded e to comply with the opportun lso noticed that the proceed final decree involve, inter eld Kanungo through DGPS al position and proposed mode ed that the Field Kanungo is o posed mode of partition before of the petitioners does not ju ction in their favour. A party, w the proceedings and after ava tly invoking Order IX Rule 13 C quential proceedings. The rem dicated on its own merits, and their plea before the learned nd is made out for interdicting servation of the learned trial Co ched the Court with entirely c evant. The Court has recorded ot, members of the Kisan Un

d an ssue The ding the g of ers a cree, d by ities ings alia, and e of only e the stify hich iling CPC, medy the trial the ourt lean that nion

obstructed him whether such does not prop the petitioner warrant an eq

9. At Rule 13 CPC d decree procee petitioners' sta implementatio outcome of th

10. Co however, clari pursuant to t subject to the 13 read with allowed and t proceedings sh in those proce

11. Th under Order granting unne order shall be application un independently

12. Pe disposed of.

11.09.2026 Yogesh

Whether

Whether

Page N: 3 of Total 3 m from carrying out the procee obstruction was at the behest o pose to return any finding on tha rs, as emerging from the imp uitable order staying the conseq t the same time, the pendency eserves to be appropriately saf edings should not be construed atutory remedy. The final decree on thereof, would necessarily e application under Order IX Ru onsequently, the present rev fied that any final decree passe the ex parte preliminary decre final outcome of the petitione Section 151 CPC. In the event the ex parte preliminary decre hall abide by and be dealt with i eedings. he learned trial Court shall en IX Rule 13 CPC expeditiously, ecessary adjournments to eithe e construed as an expression nder Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The y on the basis of the pleadings an ending miscellaneous applicat

r speaking/reasoned:

Ye r reportable:

Ye

dings and has noticed the ques of the petitioners. Though this C at allegation, the overall conduc pugned order, certainly does quential proceedings. y of the application under Orde feguarded. Continuation of the f d as foreclosing or prejudicing e, if prepared, and any executio y remain subject to the ultim le 13 CPC. vision petition is dismissed. It ed or any further proceedings ta ee dated 06.04.2026 shall rem ers' application under Order IX R t the said application is ultima ee is set aside, the consequen n accordance with the order pas deavour to decide the applica in accordance with law, with er side. Nothing contained in of opinion on the merits of e said application shall be deci nd evidence led by the parties. tion(s), if any, shall also st (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE es/No

es/No

stion ourt ct of not er IX final the n or mate t is, aken main Rule ately ntial ssed tion hout this the ided tand