Kuldeep Singh @ Kuldeep Kumar vs Rakesh Kumar

CR-8130-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 135 ) CR-8130-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.11.2026
Kuldeep Singh @ Kuldeep Kumar
… Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Kumar
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Samridhi Chatrath, Advocate;
Mr. Preet Agroa, Advocate and
Ms. Tanya Bhurji, Advocate
for the petitioner.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, seeking setting aside of the orders dated
16.10.2026 (Annexure P-1), passed by the District Judge, SAS Nagar,
Mohali, and 29.09.2026 (Annexure P-10), passed by the Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Derabassi, whereby the third execution petition bearing
No. 59 of 2026, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. Kuldeep Singh (CNR No.
PBSAB00007842026), was transferred to the Court of Ms. Navreet Kaur,
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Derabassi, without adjudicating
the petitioner’s objection regarding its maintainability and jurisdiction.
The petitioner further seeks dismissal of the execution petition or, in the
alternative, a direction to the Executing Court to decide the pending
application (Annexure P-9), raising the objection of maintainability and
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.05 15:30
I attest to the accuracy and int

CR-8130-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
jurisdiction, by a reasoned order before proceeding further with execution,
with protection against coercive steps in the meantime and preservation of
all objections, including limitation.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that an
execution petition was instituted against the petitioner before the Court of
the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi, whereupon the petitioner
entered appearance and filed an application seeking dismissal of the
execution proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, placing
reliance upon Sections 37, 38, 39, 42 and 151 CPC. It was contended that
the Court in which the execution petition had been instituted was not the
Court which had passed the decree and, therefore, was not competent to
entertain or proceed with its execution. Upon consideration of the
objection and after calling for a reply, the Presiding Officer, being of the
view that the Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the execution,
made a reference to the District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Acting upon
the said reference, the District Judge withdrew the execution petition from
the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi, and transferred
the same to the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Dera Bassi, which was considered competent to execute the decree.
3. The impugned order has been assailed primarily on the ground
that the proper course available to the Civil Judge, upon finding that the
Court lacked jurisdiction to execute the decree, was to dismiss the
execution petition as not maintainable, rather than making a reference to
the District Judge for its transfer to another Court.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.05 15:30
I attest to the accuracy and int

CR-8130-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
4. This Court finds no merit in the contention advanced by
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Where proceedings are instituted
before a Court lacking jurisdiction, the appropriate course is not to dismiss
the proceedings outright on that ground, but to return the petition for
presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Alternatively, the
Court may make an appropriate reference to the District Judge concerned,
seeking withdrawal of the proceedings from the Court lacking jurisdiction
and their entrustment to the Court competent to entertain and adjudicate
the matter.
4.1. In the present case, the execution petition was instituted before
a Court which had neither passed the decree nor was otherwise competent
to execute the same. Instead of returning the execution petition for
presentation before the competent Court, the Presiding Officer adopted the
alternative course of making a reference to the District Judge for its
withdrawal and transfer to the Court having jurisdiction to execute the
decree. The District Judge, upon accepting the reference, withdrew the
execution petition from the Court lacking jurisdiction and entrusted the
same to the competent Executing Court. Such an exercise of jurisdiction
suffers from neither illegality nor material irregularity and, therefore, does
not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently,
the present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed .
5. It is, however, clarified that the observations recorded here-in-
above are not intended, and shall not be construed, as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. All such observations are
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.05 15:30
I attest to the accuracy and int

CR-8130-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
confined solely to the adjudication of the present issue and are limited to
the scope of the controversy examined for the purposes of this order.
Nothing stated herein shall prejudice or influence the rights, claims, or
contentions of any party in any other proceeding, nor shall it be treated as
a determination of any substantive question of fact or law in the main
matter.
6. In view of the fact that the principal matter stands finally
adjudicated, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand
disposed of accordingly. No further orders are required to be passed in that
regard.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
04.11.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.05 15:30
I attest to the accuracy and int