Santokh Singh Vs Bhajan Singh — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Santokh Singh Vs Bhajan Singh — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the Executing Court's order dated 05.12.2025 declining recall of the ex parte order dated 23.09.2025 and the subsequent orders directing police assistance for execution of the decree.

Court's answer

It is a settled principle of law that a judgment-debtor cannot take advantage of his own default or delay in complying with the decree; the petitioner deliberately avoided compliance and sought to prolong proceedings by filing applications on untenable grounds.

Ratio / Principle

The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in matters arising from execution proceedings is extremely limited; this Court does not sit in appeal over the orders of the Executing Court, and interference is warranted only where the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity.

Key takeaways

In the circumstances, the Executing Court was fully justified in declining the request for recall of the ex parte order and in directing police assistance to ensure execution of the decree, having afforded adequate opportunity to comply.ratio¶¶31
This Court finds no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned orders warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction; consequently the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Deepak Gupta, J.; oral judgment dated 12.03.2026) dismissed CR-2323-2026 (O&M) filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by Santokh Singh, judgment-debtor in execution petition EXE-70-2025 (Bhajan Singh vs. Santokh Singh) before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, challenging the Executing Court's order dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure P-13) rejecting recall of the ex parte order dated 23.09.2025 and subsequent orders (Annexures P-14, P-17, P-18, P-19) directing police assistance for execution. The underlying mandatory injunction decree dated 11.01.2023 (uprooting/removal of trees within 60 days) stood affirmed in appeal on 01.08.2025. Held: (i) scope of interference under Article 227 in execution matters is extremely limited — no appeal lies over Executing Court's orders save for patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity; (ii) a judgment-debtor cannot take advantage of his own default or delay; the plea that harvesting standing crops required time was rejected as an afterthought, the Local Commissioner's photographs of 23.09.2025 showing crops not yet sown or germinated; (iii) the Executing Court acted with due consideration and afforded adequate opportunity. Petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

124

CR-2323-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision.:12.03.2026

Santokh Singh …..Pe//oner Vs. Bhajan Singh .….Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the pe��oner.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The pe��oner herein is the judgment-debtor in execu�on pe��on bearing No. EXE-70-2025, �tled “Bhajan Singh vs. Santokh Singh” , which is pending before the learned Addi�onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala.

By way of the present pe��on filed under Ar�cles 226/227 of the Cons�tu�on of India, the pe��oner has assailed the order dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Execu�ng Court, whereby his applica�on for recalling the order dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P-6) was dismissed. The pe��oner has also prayed for se:ng aside subsequent orders dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure P-14), 29.01.2026 (Annexure P-17), 12.02.2026 (Annexure P-18) and 02.03.2026 (Annexure P-19), whereby police assistance was directed to be provided to the decree-holder for execu�on of the decree.

A decree for mandatory injunc�on was passed in favour of the plain�ff/decree-holder Bhajan Singh (respondent herein) by the learned

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.13 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-2323-2026 (O&M)

-2-

Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 11.01.2023 (Annexure P-1). By virtue of the said decree, the defendant, i.e. the present pe��oner, was directed to uproot/remove the trees planted along the boundary wall of the agricultural land of the plain�ff, as detailed in the decree, within a period of 60 days.

The decree was challenged by the pe��oner by filing an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 01.08.2025, thereby affirming the decree passed by the trial Court.

As the judgment-debtor failed to comply with the decree, the decree-holder ini�ated execu�on proceedings. The record reveals that the pe��oner was duly served through his wife, but despite service, he failed to appear before the Execu�ng Court and was consequently proceeded ex parte on 23.09.2025.

ThereaAer, the pe��oner moved an applica�on seeking recall of the ex parte order. The said applica�on was dismissed by the Execu�ng Court vide order dated 05.12.2025, though the pe��oner was permiBed to join the proceedings at that stage.

Since the pe��oner s�ll failed to comply with the decree, the Execu�ng Court ordered police assistance for execu�on of the decree.

Learned counsel for the pe��oner submits that crops had been sown by the pe��oner in the land in ques�on and that uproo�ng the trees at this stage would damage the standing crops. It is submiBed that some reasonable �me may be granted to the pe��oner to harvest the crops, aAer which he undertakes to comply with the decree.

This very conten�on was raised before the Execu�ng Court and has been dealt with in detail. The Execu�ng Court has recorded that the decree under execu�on was passed on 11.01.2023 and was affirmed in

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.13 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-2323-2026 (O&M)

-3-

appeal on 01.08.2025. Thus, the pe��oner had sufficient opportunity to comply with the decree even before sowing the winter crop.

The Execu�ng Court also no�ced that the photographs produced by the Local Commissioner revealed that at the �me of the visit to the spot on 23.09.2025, the crops had either not been sown or had not yet germinated. Thus, the plea raised by the pe��oner that the standing crop would be damaged was found to be an aAerthought.

It is a seBled principle of law that a judgment-debtor cannot take advantage of his own default or delay in complying with the decree. The conduct of the pe��oner clearly indicates that despite the decree aBaining finality, he deliberately avoided compliance and sought to prolong the proceedings by filing applica�ons on untenable grounds.

The scope of interference under Ar�cle 227 of the Cons�tu�on of India in maBers arising from execu�on proceedings is extremely limited. This Court does not sit in appeal over the orders of the Execu�ng Court and interference is warranted only where the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, jurisdic�onal error or perversity.

In the present case, the Execu�ng Court has passed the impugned orders aAer due considera�on of the record and the conduct of the pe��oner. The reasoning recorded by the Execu�ng Court clearly shows that the pe��oner had been afforded adequate opportunity to comply with the decree but chose not to do so.

In such circumstances, the Execu�ng Court was fully jus�fied in declining the request for recall of the ex parte order and in direc�ng police assistance to ensure execu�on of the decree.

This Court finds no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned orders warran�ng interference in exercise of supervisory

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.13 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-2323-2026 (O&M)

-4-

jurisdic�on.

Consequently, the present pe��on being devoid of merit is

dismissed.

All pending miscellaneous applica�on(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

March 12, 2026

Nee�ka Tuteja

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.13 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document