Dismissed

Kanwar Singh v. Bhagwan Singh and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jan 2010CR/4211/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition filed under Article 226 challenging the Executing Court's order dismissing objections in an execution petition. The Court held that the objector's arguments were meritless given procedural lapses and the finality of the decree holder's auction purchase.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed as the objections filed by the petitioner were found to be meritless.

Kanwar Singh Vs Bhagwan Singh and Another — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C. R. No. 4211 of 2005

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 4211 of 2005

¶5

Date of Decision : January 14, 2010

¶6

Kanwar Singh

¶7

.... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

Bhagwan Singh and another .... Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶10

¶11

Present : Mr. Arunn Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1.

¶13

¶14

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶15

Kanwar Singh – Objector has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 28.07.2005 passed by the Executing Court i.e. learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri thereby dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner in execution petition instituted by decree holder Bhagwan Singh – respondent no.1 against judgment debtor Rajinder Parshad – respondent no. 2.

¶16

Respondent no. 1 filed suit for recovery against respondent no.2 on 02.06.1995 and on the same day, land in dispute was ordered to be attached before judgment by the Court under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of

¶17

C. R. No. 4211 of 2005

¶18

¶19

Civil Procedure (in short – CPC). Suit filed by respondent no.1 was decreed on 12.01.1999. In execution petition filed by respondent no.1 against respondent no.2, the disputed land was again ordered to be attached vide order dated 18.05.2000, which was proclaimed at the spot on 01.06.2000. Ultimately, the disputed land was put to auction on 05.07.2002 by the Executing Court. Respondent no.1 – decree holder purchased the said land in auction after having sought permission from the Executing Court. The said sale was confirmed and sale certificate dated 04.09.2002 was issued by the Executing Court in favour of respondent no.1. Thereupon, respondent no.1 filed execution petition to seek possession of the disputed land purchased by him in auction in the execution proceedings.

¶20

The petitioner filed objections dated 18.03.2004 in the aforesaid execution petition, alleging that the petitioner along with his brothers Naresh Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar purchased the disputed land measuring 05 kanals 12 marlas along with some other land (total measuring 07 kanals 19 marlas) from respondent no.2 and his wife vide sale deed dated 28.03.2000 for valuable consideration and mutation regarding the same has also been sanctioned on 26.04.2000 and therefore, the petitioner and his brothers are owners in possession of the disputed land and cannot be dispossessed in the execution petition.

¶21

Respondent no.1 – decree holder resisted the objections filed by the petitioner and pleaded that the disputed land already stood attached before judgment in the suit and was again attached on 18.05.2000 in the execution proceedings and respondent no.1, having purchased the same in auction, is entitled to get actual possession thereof.

¶22

The learned Executing Court, by way of impugned order dated 28.07.2005, has dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

¶24

C. R. No. 4211 of 2005

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that attachment before judgment made vide order dated 02.06.1995 was never effected as per provisions of Order 21 Rule 54 CPC. However, the contention cannot be accepted because no such plea was even raised in the objections, nor there is any material on record to substantiate the said plea. On the other hand, as per paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner before the Executing Court was that attachment made in execution vide order dated 01.06.2000 (in fact said to be order dated 18.05.2000) was not entered in the revenue record. However, the petitioner and his brothers had allegedly purchased the disputed land before the said attachment. Moreover, when the attachment of the land made in execution vide order dated 18.05.2000 was proclaimed at the spot on 01.06.2000, the petitioner cannot be allowed to plead in 2004 that he had no knowledge of the said attachment.

¶27

When the land was under attachment pursuant to order dated 02.06.1995, purchase thereof by the petitioner and his brothers vide sale deed dated 28.03.2000 is null and void and not binding on the decree holder.

¶28

Not only that, attachment was again made in execution proceedings vide order dated 18.05.2000. Sale of disputed land was effected on 05.07.2002 and the sale became absolute and sale certificate was issued on 04.09.2002. However, the petitioner did not file any objection under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC against the attachment made vide order dated 18.05.2000. If the petitioner had preferred any such objection against the said attachment, appropriate order could have been passed in accordance with law and the decree holder – respondent no.1 might not have purchased the disputed land, if the objections filed by the petitioner had been accepted. In the instant case, the sale has already become absolute and the petitioner filed the objections 1½ years after the sale became absolute. Consequently, the objections filed by the petitioner cannot be accepted for this added

¶29

C. R. No. 4211 of 2005

¶30

¶31

reason as well. On the other hand, pursuant to sale certificate, decree holder – respondent no.1 became absolute owner of the disputed land and is, therefore, entitled to delivery of possession thereof under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid, I find that objections filed by the petitioner in the Executing Court are meritless although for slightly different reasons than assigned by the Executing Court. Accordingly, the revision petition being without any merit, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶33

January 14, 2010

¶34

monika

¶35

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

Kanwar Singh v. Bhagwan Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanwar Singh v. Bhagwan Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devender Chaudhary Vs Dhanvir and Anr.

Suman Bansal Vs Dharam Singh Verma & Ors.

Amrik Singh Vs Harjit Singh

Uttam Singh Yadavand Anors Vs M/S Life Insuranbce Corp of India

Sohan Singh and Ors. Vs Kuldip Singh and Anr.

Kanwar Kumar and Ors. Vs Ram Narain and Ors.