Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maya Devi — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maya Devi — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition disposed of: the interim order dated 26.04.2024 staying further execution proceedings is to continue to operate; the Court seized of the Order IX Rule 13 CPC application is directed to finally decide the application (or any injunction prayed) uninfluenced by the impugned Executing Court order; and the Executing Court is directed to further invest the F.D.R. proceeds for six months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim stay of execution proceedings (order dated 26.04.2024) should continue to operate pending final decision of the petitioner's application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC against the ex parte eviction order. +1 more

Court's answer

The revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court where the proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC are pending to either finally decide the application or at least decide the injunction, if any, prayed.

Ratio / Principle

The interim order passed on 26.04.2024 shall continue to operate; however, the Court deciding the Order IX Rule 13 CPC proceedings will pass its order uninfluenced by the impugned order passed by the Executing Court.

Key takeaways

The Executing Court is directed to further invest the proceeds of the F.D.R. for a period of the next six months.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Anil Kshetarpal, J.) disposed of a civil revision filed by a tenant-company against dismissal of its application under Order XXI Rule 26 CPC for stay of execution of an ex parte eviction order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the Rent Controller in the landlady's execution petition. The petitioner had also instituted proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC against the ex parte eviction order, in which no interim order had been granted. On notice of motion issued on 26.04.2024, further execution proceedings had been stayed subject to deposit of ₹1,93,200/- within fifteen days, which was duly deposited. Disposing of the revision, the Court held that the interim order shall continue to operate; directed the Court seized of the Order IX Rule 13 CPC proceedings to either finally decide the application or at least decide the injunction, if any, prayed, uninfluenced by the impugned order of the Executing Court; and further directed the Executing Court to invest the F.D.R. proceeds for a period of six months.

119

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 2540 of 2024

Date of Decision: 12.05.2025

ATC Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Maya Devi

... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present: Mr. Shikhar Garg, Advocate (Through Video Conferencing) and Mr. Mahir Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Shailender Singh and Ms. Priya Bhati, Advocates for the respondent.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

The petitioner herein is a tenant who has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller vide judgment dated 13.03.2019 when the landlady has filed the execution petition filed an application under Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) for staying the execution proceedings which was dismissed, against which this revision petition has been filed. Admittedly, no interim order has been granted in favour of the petitioner in the proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC which has been filed by the petitioner against the ex parte eviction order passed on 13.03.2019.

While issuing notice of motion on 26.04.2024, further proceedings in the execution petition were stayed subject to deposit of ₹1,93,200/- within a period of 15 days, which has been deposited. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2025.05.13 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Civil Revision No. 2540 of 2024

2

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the revision petition is disposed of with the direction to the Court where the proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is pending to either finally decide the application or at least decide the injunction, if any, prayed. The interim order passed on 26.04.2024 shall continue to operate, however, the Court will pass the order uninfluenced by the impugned order passed by the Executing Court.

It is directed that the Executing Court will further invest the proceeds of the F.D.R. for a period of next six months.

With the observations made above, this revision petition is

disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge May 12, 2025 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2025.05.13 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document