In a civil revision, the court dismissed the petition challenging an executing court order fixing a sale schedule for the petitioner's property to satisfy a final decree for marriage compensation awarded against him for murder.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CR No. 2951 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 2951 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.5.2009
Pritam Singh
... Petitioner
v.
Malkiat Kaur and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 11.4.2009, passed by he learned Executing Court, whereby in execution of a decree passed in favour of the respondents, schedule for sale of the property has been fixed.
Briefly, the facts are that in a suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for damages on account of murder of Harbhajan Singh, who was husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 to 5 (minor daughters and son), the learned trial court passed a decree awarding a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation. The petitioner did not challenge the judgment and decree any further. In execution of the aforesaid decree, the property of the petitioner was attached and schedule for sale thereof was fixed. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not avail of the remedy of appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court, as he was undergoing imprisonment at that time and even at the time of passing of the order of attachment on 2.4.2005 also, he was in custody. However, on a query by the court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is unable to deposit the decretal amount or even the substantial portion of that before the sale of the property.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to stay the auction of the property in execution of the decree. Merely because the petitioner, at the relevant time when the decree was passed or the attachment of property was ordered, was in custody, is not entitled to claim that he
CR No. 2951 of 2009 [2]
could not avail of the remedy against the orders, as even through jail, he could very well get the appeal filed against the said orders. The petitioner was convicted for the murder of Harbhajan Singh. Once the judgment and decree has already attained finality, the same is required to be executed in due process. In case the learned Executing Court has ordered for sale of the property belonging to the petitioner, no illegality can be found therein.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
25.5.2009 mk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can stay the auction of property in execution of a decree merely because he was in custody at the time of appeal or attachment.
Whether the appeal was barred as the petitioner was in imprisonment.
Whether the execution court committed an illegality by fixing a schedule for sale of the petitioner's property.
Pritam Singh
Malkiat Kaur and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
