Revision petition challenging dismissal of execution objections was dismissed. Court clarified that since a specific performance suit is pending, no final determination of rights was made here.
Revision petition dismissed; no bearing on merits of pending specific performance suit.
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.
C.R. No.4027 of 2008
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.4027 of 2008 Date of Decision: 08.01.2010
Dinesh Chand
.……Petitioner
Versus
Har Chandi and others ……Respondents
Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present: Mr. S. K. Sood, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anish Setia, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)
Dinesh Chand-Objector has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 05.04.2008 passed by the Executing Court i.e learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal vide which objections filed by the petitioner in the execution petition have been dismissed and the said order has been affirmed in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 07.06.2008 which is also under challenge in the instant revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
Suit filed by respondent No.1- Har Chandi against Sher Singh respondent No.2 and his wife Ramwati (both since deceased) (Ramwati not party to the instant revision petition) for possession of suit property by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 09.09.1994 was decreed. Respondent No.1-decree-holder filed execution petition wherein the petitioner Dinesh Chand filed objection alleging that Sher Singh-judgment debtor No.1 had agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the petitionerobjector for Rs.2,25,000/- vide agreement dated 31.01.1994 and entire sale
C.R. No.4027 of 2008
-2-
consideration was paid by the objector, who is in possession of the suit property since then and the decree has been obtained by respondent No.1 in collusion with Judgment Debtor No.1 i.e respondent No.2.
Objections were resisted by the decree-holder.
Learned Executing Court vide impugned order dated 05.04.2008 dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner. Appeal against the said order preferred by the petitioner had been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 07.06.2008.
Admittedly the petitioner did not file suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell dated 31.01.1994 till the year 2007, when he filed the suit after warrant of possession was issued in the execution petition filed by respondent No.1. Said suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner is still pending. In view thereof, it would be appropriate if the rights of the parties are determined in the said suit.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is dismissed with clarification that any observations or finding in the impugned order dated 05.04.2008 of the Executing Court and judgment dated 07.06.2008 of the Appellate Court shall have no bearing on the merits of the suit for specific performance of the agreement filed by the petitioner herein.
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE
08.01.2010. A. Kaundal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the instant revision petition should be dismissed given that the petitioner is yet to file a suit for specific performance.
Whether any observations in the impugned orders bear on the merits of pending specific performance suit.
Dinesh Chand
Har Chandi
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
