Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea to Stay Decree Execution; Says Filing Appeal Does Not Automatically Suspend Enforcement
Case Name: Gurwinder Singh v. Sukhwinder Singh
Date of Judgment: October 31, 2025
Citation: CR-7109-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a civil revision petition seeking a stay on execution of a money decree, reiterating that mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay on decree execution unless the appellate court expressly orders so under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Justice Mandeep Pannu held that the executing court was justified in proceeding with execution since no stay had been granted by the appellate court.
Summary: The petitioner–judgment debtor challenged the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla, which rejected his plea under Section 151 CPC for staying execution of a decree dated 31.05.2024. The decree had been passed in favour of the respondent in a recovery suit. The petitioner had already filed an appeal before the District Judge, Sangrur, along with an application for condonation of delay and a stay application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC.
During pendency of that appeal, the decree-holder initiated execution proceedings and obtained warrants of attachment. The petitioner sought a stay before the executing court, arguing that further proceedings would render the pending appeal infructuous. Relying on Santosh v. Kanta Devi (2023 3 RCR (Civil) 652), he contended that execution should be held in abeyance until the appeal is decided.
Justice Pannu, however, observed that the cited precedent was inapplicable since in Santosh the appellate court had already granted conditional stay, unlike the present case. The Court reaffirmed the settled law that an appeal does not automatically suspend execution, and the executing court has no jurisdiction to stay enforcement in the absence of an appellate order.
Decision: Dismissing the revision petition, the Court upheld the order dated 01.09.2025 and directed that the petitioner may pursue the pending stay application before the appellate court, which shall decide it independently on merits and uninfluenced by any observations herein.