***

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) –

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.10.2025 and order dated 01.11.2025 passed by Ld. Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Dabwali, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor to the execution application filed by the respondent/Decree holder has been dismissed and warrant of auction/sale has been issued against the attached property of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/decree-holder filed a suit for recovery of an amount of ?27,50,000/- on the basis of a pronote and receipt, allegedly executed by the petitioner/judgment-debtor in favour of the respondent/decree-holder. Notice of the suit was duly served upon the petitioner/judgment-debtor; however, he failed to appear before the learned Trial Court and, as a result, the suit was decreed ex-parte in favour of the respondent/decree-holder vide order dated 10.01.2024. Thereafter, the respondent/decree-holder filed an application for execution of the decree under Order XXI Rule 11(2) CPC, in which the petitioner/judgment-debtor was duly served. Subsequently, the petitioner/judgment-debtor filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree. The petitioner/judgment-debtor appeared in the execution proceedings and filed objections along with an application seeking adjournment of the proceedings sine die, awaiting the decision of application for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 10.01.2024. However, the objections filed by the petitioner/judgment-debtor were dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 24.10.2025. Thereafter, the learned Executing Court proceeded to issue the schedule of sale of the attached property of the petitioner/judgment-debtor vide impugned order dated 01.11.2025. The aforesaid orders have been challenged in the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment-debtor contends that an application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree is pending consideration before the learned Trial Court for 06.01.2026. It is further submitted that the impugned orders dated 24.10.2025 and 01.11.2025 deserve to be set aside, as their continuance would frustrate the very purpose of filing the application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper book.

5. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as it would only delay the proceeding and cause unnecessary expenditure to the respondents.

6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner/judgment-debtor that, in the event of auction of the property, the very purpose of filing the application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC would be frustrated. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present revision petition is disposed of. The impugned orders dated 24.10.2025 and 01.11.2025 are hereby set aside. The learned trial Court/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo, is directed to decide the application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC, which is pending consideration and fixed for 06.01.2026, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Order accordingly.

********