Harjinder Singh Roopra Vs Gaurav Sharma — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Harjinder Singh Roopra Vs Gaurav Sharma — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim stay of the impugned order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) ordering auction of the petitioner's property, till disposal of appeal CA-74-2024 before the learned District Judge; notice to respondents dispensed with; pending applications, if any, disposed of; Registry directed to send a copy of the order to the Executing Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 27.04.2026 of the Executing Court ordering auction of the petitioner's property should be stayed while appeal CA-74-2024 is pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala.

Court's answer

Without commenting upon the actual merits of the case, the impugned order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) shall be stayed till the disposal of the appeal before the learned District Judge.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the limited nature of relief sought, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as it would only result in further delay in the proceedings.

Key takeaways

Registry directed to send a copy of this order to the Executing Court for necessary compliance.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 — Stay of auction of judgment-debtor's property during pendency of appeal. Petitioner (judgment-debtor) challenged the order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Nakodar, in CM-29/2006 in EXE-11/2026 ('Gaurav Sharma Vs. Harjinder Singh Roopra'), whereby the Executing Court ordered auction of his property during pendency of appeal CA-74-2024 before the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala. The appeal was against a judgment and decree dated 30.01.2024 awarding Rs. 8 lakhs with interest as damages for delay in construction of lawyers' chambers; the petitioner had been proceeded against ex parte in execution. The High Court, without commenting upon the actual merits, stayed the impugned order till disposal of the appeal before the learned District Judge; notice to the respondents was dispensed with considering the limited nature of relief; pending applications were disposed of; and the Registry was directed to send a copy of the order to the Executing Court for compliance.

CR-4175-2026

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

129

CR-4175-2026 Date of decision: 18��

Harjinder Singh Roopra ...Petitioner

Versus

Gaurav Sharma and another

.... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE �� Present: Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

��, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging the impugned order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Nakodar, in CM-29/2006 in EXE-11/2026 titled as “Gaurav Sharma Vs. Harjinder Singh Roopra”, whereby the Executing Court has ordered the auction of the property of the present petitioner during the pendency of appeal bearing CA-74-2024.

The brief facts of the case are that respondent-Gaurav Sharma had filed a suit for damages/compensation on account of delay in construction of lawyers’ chambers against the present petitioner and others. Notice of the said suit was issued to the present petitioner and others, who contested the same by filing their written statement before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kapurthala. As many as seven issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kapurthala. Thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence and ultimately, the suit of the respondent was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.2024, whereby an amount of Rs.8 lakhs along with

ANIL KUMAR interest was awarded as damages. Aggrieved against the said judgment and 2026.05.18 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-4175-2026

2

decree dated 30.01.2024, the petitioner and others preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala. In the said appeal, the present petitioner moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the civil appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2024, which was allowed vide order dated 19.03.2024. Thereafter, the case was fixed for consideration of the stay application. In the meantime, the respondents filed an execution application. Notice of the execution application was issued to the petitioner and others; however, they failed to appear before the learned Executing Court and were ultimately proceeded against ex parte. Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kapurthala, vide impugned order dated 27.04.2026, ordered the property of the petitioner to be put to auction for 19.05.2026.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment-debtor contends that since the matter is pending consideration before the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kapurthala, ought not to have ordered the auction of the property of the petitioner. She further contends that the transfer application bearing TA-1409-2025 pertaining to the present case is also pending consideration before this Court.

Considering the limited nature of relief sought, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as the same would only result in further delay in the proceedings.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper book with his able assistance.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without commenting upon the actual merits of the case, the impugned order dated

ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.18 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-4175-2026

3

27.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) shall be stayed till the disposal of aforesaid appeal before the learned District Judge.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Executing

Court for necessary compliance.

��  �� �� Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.18 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document