Partly allowed

Mengal Singh and Another v. M/S Kundan Lal and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2010CR/2167/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that simultaneous recovery by way of land revenue arrears and attachment of property for decree execution was impermissible and set aside such proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing recovery as arrears of land revenue is set aside; the executing court is directed to proceed with execution via attachment of property.

Mengal Singh and Another Vs M/S Kundan Lal… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C . R. No. 2167 of 2010

¶2

- 1-

¶3

¶4

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

C . R. No. 2167 of 2010 Date of Decision : 15.09.2010

¶6

Mengal Singh & another

¶7

.......... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Kundan Lal Harbans Lal, Commission Agents, Mandi Dabwali & another

¶10

...... Respondent

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

¶12

Present : Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the respondents.

¶14

¶15

VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

¶16

The petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the impugned part of orders dated 25.11.2009 and 6.3.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dabwali, vide which the money decree passed against the petitioners has been ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

¶17

It is not in dispute that the petitioners owns 88K-15Ms of agricultural land, which can be attached for execution of the decree. It is the stand of the respondent,that in fact the land stands attached and execution is in progress.

¶18

The impugned part of the order vide which recovery has been ordered by way of arrears of land revenue, is only challenged in

¶19

C . R. No. 2167 of 2010

¶20

- 2-

¶21

¶22

this revision. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out t at the property of the petitioner already stood attached in execution f the decree, therefore, there was hardly any reason to order the recovery by way of arrears of land revenue. It is not permissible for the Court to follow two procedures at the same time.

¶23

It is well settled law that the order of arrest and detention of the judgment debtors is not to be easily ordered till the Court is satisfied, that the judgment debtor is avoiding the decree in spite of having means to satisfy the decree.

¶24

There was no occasion for the learned executing Court to order recovery by way of land revenue while following other procedure of recovery.

¶25

Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned part of the order directing the recovery as arrears of land revenue is set aside.

¶26

The learned executing Court is directed to proceed with the execution for recovery of amount and sale of immovable property of judgment debtor, as per procedure for execution of the decree by attachment.

¶27

Revision disposed off.

¶28

15.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE

Mengal Singh and Another v. M/S Kundan Lal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mengal Singh and Another v. M/S Kundan Lal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inder Singh Vs Bahadur Singh

Gurlal Singh Vs Hardyal Gir & Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs Shaffi and Ors.

Jasbir Kaur Aujla Vs Kanwar Opinder Singh Jaswal and Ors.

Shiv Kumar Goyal Vs Jai Kumar Goyal & Ors.

Pushpinder Singh Vs Maninder Kaur