The Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for a status report from the District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, after the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation pointed out that an Additional District Judge had relied on a High Court order which, according to the Corporation, was never passed.

Justice Lapita Banerji, hearing a civil revision petition, observed that a “serious issue” had been raised and directed the District Judge to explain the anomaly in an order dated August 19, 2026, passed by the Additional District Judge in execution proceedings.

The revision petition, filed by Hardev Singh and others, who are the judgment debtors, challenges an order dated March 27, 2026, passed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby warrants of attachment of their property had been issued.

Appearing on advance notice for respondent No. 1, the award holder Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Standing Counsel Abhilaksh Gaind placed before the Court the ADJ's order dated August 19, 2026, passed in EXE-86-2024.

He submitted that no order dated April 21, 2026, had been passed by the High Court concerning the parties and, therefore, the ADJ could not have relied on any such order to stay the execution proceedings.

Senior Advocate Vijay Kumar Jindal, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the stay had in fact been granted on April 21, 2026 by the ADJ hearing the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

He contended that the Executing Court had wrongly recorded that the High Court had passed the stay order while hearing the objections.

Taking note of the issue, the High Court called for a status report from the District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, explaining the anomaly in the August 19 order.

The Court also directed the District Judge to explain two further inconsistencies in the order—first, how the order recorded that the presence of the decree holder was awaited while also recording the appearance of the decree holder's counsel; and second, how the order recorded that judgment debtors Nos. 1 to 7 had been proceeded against “ex parte” while also recording the presence of counsel for judgment debtors Nos. 3 to 6.

The Court adjourned the matter to November 30, 2026.

Case Title: Hardev Singh and Others v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and Another

Appearance: Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Mr. Abhishek Shukla and Mr. Vijayveer, Advocates for the petitioners.

Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Standing Counsel, PSWC with Mr. Rakesh Roy and Ms. Priya Jarial, Advocates for respondent No. 1.

Click here to read order