Partly allowed

Ishwar Singh v. Rameshwar etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2009ESA/1163/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against orders attaching a Haveli to satisfy a decree. The court modified the attachment order in light of the judgment debtor's available land share sufficient to satisfy the claim.

What did the court decide?

The attachment of the Haveli is released and in its lieu, the share of Ram Singh in land (Khasra No.33/18/1) measuring 19 kanals 12 marlas less 02 kanals 06 marlas is ordered to be attached.

Ishwar Singh Vs Rameshwar etc. — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CASE NO.: E.S.A. No.1163 of 2007

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : July 23,2009

Ishwar Singh

.......Appellant

versus

Rameshwar etc.

......Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. G.S. Gandhi, Advocate and Ms. Hanny Gadhi, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.

¶13

A suit bearing No.135 of 1997 was filed by the decree holder against Ram Singh for recovery of Rs.37,620/-. The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 05-01-2001. The decree holder filed the execution petition for recovery of the decreetal amount and also filed the list of the property of the judgment debtor along with details of the Haveli, alleging that the judgment debtor has 1/3^rd share in the Haveli. Accordingly, the share of the judgment debtor to the extent in the Haveli was ordered to be attached by the Court. Ishwar Singh, father of the judgment debtor, third party filed the objection against the attachment of the Haveli. The objections were dismissed by the Civil Judge, Narnaul on 20-07-2005 as well as by the First Appellate Court vide order dated 07-03-2007.

¶14

Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the same, the objector Ishwar Singh has filed the present appeal. During the course of the present

¶15

E.S.A. No.1163 of 2007 -2-

¶16

proceedings in the appeal, Mr. Sanjay Mittal, learned counsel for the respondents-decree holder, took time to verify whether Ram Singh, the judgment debtor had a share in the land falling in Khasra No.33/18/1, measuring 19 kanals 12 marlas and whether his claim can be satisfied against the value of the share of Ram Singh.

¶17

Today, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions and after verifying the facts, states that Ram Singh does have a share in the land falling in Khasra No.33/18/1, measuring 19 kanals 12 marlas situated in Village Nangal Chaudhary Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh after excluding 02 Kanals 06 Marlas upon which the Haveli is situated and the same is sufficient to enable him to have the claim satisfied against the value of the share of Ram Singh in the land. Accordingly, he has no objection if the Haveli, ordered to be attached vide order dated 20-07-2005 passed by Civil Judge, Narnaul, is ordered to be released.

¶18

In view of the above facts, it is further prayed that in lieu of the same, the share of the judgment debtor-Ram Singh in the land falling in Khasra No.33/18/1, measuring 19 kanals 12 marlas situated in Village Nangal Chaudhary Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh after excluding 02 Kanals 06 Marlas upon which the Haveli is situated, is attached.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant has no objection to the same.

¶20

In view of the statement of learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal is disposed of and the impugned order dated 20-07-2005 passed by passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Narnaul as well as the judgment dated 07-03-2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Narnaul is modified to the extent that the Haveli ordered to be attached by the

¶21

E.S.A. No.1163 of 2007 -3-

¶22

above order, shall be released and in lieu of that the share of Ram Singh, Judgment Debtor in the land falling in Khasra No.33/18/1, measuring 19 kanals 12 marlas situated in Village Nangal Chaudhary Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh, after excluding 02 Kanals 06 Marlas upon which the Haveli is situated, is ordered to be attached for satisfying the said decree. The Executing Court will now, thereafter, proceed in accordance with law.

¶23

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE

¶24

July 23, 2009 gurpreet

¶25

Whether to be referred to the Reporter : Yes / No

Ishwar Singh v. Rameshwar etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Singh v. Rameshwar etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharam Pal Vs Baksho and Ors.

M/S Anand Brick Traders Vs M/S Garg Bricks Co. and Ors.

Arun Kumar & Ors. Vs Indusland Bank Ltd. & Ors.

Lalit Kumar etc. Vs General Public etc.

Rampal Vs Kanshi Ram and Ors.

Hry. Power General Corp. Ltd. Vs Bhartiya Caccialanza Fire Systems Ltd.