The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought a status report from Muktsar District Judge, explaining an anomaly in an order dated August 19 passed by an Additional District Judge (ADJ) in execution proceedings.Justice Lapita Banerji passed the order while hearing a civil revision petition filed by Hardev Singh and other petitioners against Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and another respondent.At the onset, Justice Banerji observed the revision petition was filed challenging an order dated March 27 passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby warrants of attachment of the judgment-debtors” property was issued.Appearing for respondent Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, were Standing Counsel Abhilaksh Gaind, along with advocates Rakesh Roy and Priya Jarial.They placed before the bench an order dated August 19 passed by the ADJ to submit that “no order dated April 21, 2026, was passed by the high court concerning the parties”. As such, the ADJ could not have relied on any such order to stay the execution proceedings.Senior counsel Vijay Kumar Jindal, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that instead of recording that the stay order had been granted on the same date, April 21, by the ADJ hearing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it was wrongly recorded by the executing court that the high court had passed the stay order while hearing the objections.Justice Banerji observed that a serious issue had been raised by counsel for respondent and directed Muktsar District Judge to submit a status report explaining the “anomaly” that had crept into the order dated August 19.The District Judge was also asked to explain how, despite recording that the presence of the decree-holder was awaited, the appearance of the counsel for the decree-holder was recorded.The high court further sought explanation on how, after recording that judgment-debtors had been proceeded against ex parte, the ADJ recorded the presence of a counsel.