In an execution case over an arbitral award, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, to explain why an order of the executing court records a High Court stay order that the award holder says does not exist, and why it records the presence of counsel inconsistently with its own notings.
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for a status report from the District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, explaining an anomaly in an order dated August 19, 2026 passed by the Additional District Judge in execution proceedings (EXE-86-2024) against judgment debtors, in a civil revision filed by the judgment debtors against the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation [Hardev Singh and Others v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and Another].
Justice Lapita Banerji passed the interim order on September 16, 2026 and adjourned the matter to November 30, 2026. The Court has not recorded any finding on the merits of the revision or on the anomaly, pending the status report.
Background of the case
The revision challenges an order of March 27, 2026 of the Additional District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, issuing warrants of attachment of the property of the judgment debtors. The Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, respondent no. 1 and the award holder, appeared on advance notice and placed before the Court the Additional District Judge’s order of August 19, 2026 in the execution proceedings. It submitted that no order dated April 21, 2026 had been passed by the High Court concerning the parties, and that the executing court therefore could not have relied on any such order to stay the execution proceedings.
Senior Advocate Vijay Kumar Jindal, for the petitioners, submitted that instead of recording that the stay had been granted on the same date, April 21, 2026, by the Additional District Judge hearing the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the executing court had wrongly recorded that the High Court passed the stay order while hearing the objections.
The Court’s Direction To The Muktsar District Judge
Observing that a serious issue had been raised by the counsel for the respondent, the Court called for a status report from the District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, explaining the anomaly in the August 19 order. It also asked the District Judge to explain how, although the order records that the presence of the decree holder is awaited, it records the appearance of the decree holder’s counsel, and how, after recording that judgment debtors no. 1 to 7 were proceeded against ex parte, it records the presence of counsel for judgment debtors no. 3 to 6.
Case Title: Hardev Singh and Others v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and Another
Case Number: CR-6970-2026
Bench: Justice Lapita Banerji, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Order: September 16, 2026
Appearance: Senior Advocate Vijay Kumar Jindal with Advocates Ajay Pal Singh, Abhishek Shukla and Vijayveer for the petitioners; Standing Counsel Abhilaksh Gaind with Advocates Rakesh Roy and Priya Jarial for the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation