Execution of Ex Parte Decree Must Await Adjudication of Challenge Under Order IX Rule 13: Punjab & Haryana High Court Halts Eviction

“Proceeding with execution without deciding the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC would cause irreparable prejudice and render the challenge infructuous.” - In a notable ruling protecting the procedural rights of litigants, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed the execution of an ex parte possession decree passed in July 2024. Justice Parmod Goyal emphasized that an executing court must not enforce such a decree when an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 — seeking to set aside that very decree — is pending adjudication.

The Court found the execution of the decree, despite a pending challenge, would frustrate the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and cause grave injustice. It further directed the District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, to ensure both proceedings — the execution and the application — are heard by the same court for judicial consistency and administrative coherence.

“To Execute the Decree Now Would Defeat the Very Purpose of Order IX Rule 13”: High Court Protects Litigant’s Right to Be Heard

The matter arose out of a possession suit filed by the respondents against Banta Singh (now deceased, represented by his legal heir Nishan Singh), in which the defendant was proceeded ex parte on March 20, 2019. An ex parte judgment and decree were thereafter passed on July 11, 2024.

Upon learning of the decree, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on March 4, 2025, to set aside the ex parte judgment. While the application was pending, the decree-holder initiated execution proceedings. Despite being granted repeated opportunities, the decree-holder failed to file a reply to the application and instead sought to enforce the decree — leading the executing court to issue warrants of possession with police help on September 17, 2025.

This prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court in revision, seeking stay of execution until his challenge was decided.

Execution Stayed to Prevent Prejudice: “If Execution Proceeds, Application Will Be Rendered Infructuous”

Justice Goyal, after reviewing the record, found the petitioner’s apprehensions well-founded:

“The manner in which the execution proceedings are being pursued, despite the pendency of the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, is likely to result in grave injustice to the petitioner… If the execution is carried out without considering the pending application, it will cause irreparable prejudice and loss to the petitioner.”

The Court underscored that Order IX Rule 13 serves as a remedial provision allowing a litigant to seek restoration of a hearing opportunity where they were absent. Execution during the pendency of such an application would defeat the purpose of the remedy, especially when the decree-holder themselves were delaying the adjudication by failing to file replies.

Justice Goyal relied on multiple precedents of the High Court to reinforce this principle:

• Siraj @ Suraj v. Sumit Jain, C.R. No. 3760 of 2023 (decided on 06.07.2023)
• Davinder Pal Singh & Another v. Narinder Pal Singh & Others, C.R. No. 722 of 2016 (decided on 12.04.2026)
• Gurpal Singh v. Balwant Singh, C.R. No. 5339 of 2025 (decided on 11.08.2025)

Each of these decisions reiterated the importance of staying execution when a bona fide application to set aside the ex parte decree is pending.

Single Court to Hear Both Proceedings: High Court Ensures Judicial Coordination

In addition to staying the execution, the High Court directed judicial streamlining of related proceedings. It was noted that the execution petition and the Order IX Rule 13 application were pending before different courts, despite arising from the same judgment and decree.

“When an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and the execution petition arise out of the same judgment and decree, they ought to be adjudicated by the same Court — either the Court which passed the judgment and decree or its successor.”

Accordingly, the District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, was directed to ensure both matters are heard by the same presiding officer, ensuring consistency in judicial findings and administrative efficiency.

High Court Directs Expeditious Disposal Within Six Months

Justice Goyal further ordered that the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC be decided within six months, acknowledging the petitioner's procedural right to have his case heard in a timely manner before facing eviction or other coercive execution measures.

“Let the application preferred by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 CPC be adjudicated within a period of six months from today.”

Procedural Safeguards and Fairness Affirmed

This decision is a reaffirmation of the procedural safeguards enshrined in civil litigation — particularly for defendants affected by ex parte decrees. By halting coercive execution pending the outcome of a legally permissible challenge, the High Court ensured that a litigant’s right to be heard is not frustrated by procedural imbalance or judicial haste.

The ruling not only upholds the principles of natural justice but also promotes judicial coordination by directing that related matters arising from the same dispute be heard by the same court. It sets a valuable precedent for trial courts handling similar procedural intersections between execution and challenge of ex parte decrees.

Date of Decision: October 29, 2025