Dismissed

Om Pati and Ors. v. Sat Narain

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Mar 2012CR/1947/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order directing revenue authorities to enter mutation in favor of a decree-holder based on a court-executed sale deed. The court held the direction was consequential and note the pendency of a review application does not justify a stay.

What did the court decide?

The present petition challenging the order directing mutation entry is dismissed.

Om Pati and Ors. Vs Sat Narain — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1947 of 2012 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 1947 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.3.2012

¶4

Smt. Om Pati and others

.. Petitioners

Sat Narain

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶12

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 7.1.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby while considering the execution petition filed by the decree-holder and noticing that sale deed in terms thereof had been executed, the revenue authorities were directed to enter mutation on the basis of the sale deed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners-judgment debtors submitted that the learned court below has exceeded its jurisdiction while directing the revenue authorities to enter mutation on the basis of the sale deed. The decree was only to the extent that the sale deed was to be executed. He further submitted that crops are standing on the land in dispute. It is also claimed that an application for review of order dated 26.4.2007 passed by Additional District judge directing correction of certain numbers in the decree is pending.

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The petitioners having failed to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement to sell dated 27.8.1991, the suit was partially decreed on 3.2.2000 directing refund of double the amount of earnest money. The respondent-vendee aggrieved against the judgment and decree filed appeal before the learned lower appellate court, which was

¶15

Civil Revision No. 1947 of 2012 [2]

¶16

accepted on 12.4.2002 and the court granted the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell in favour of the respondent-vendee. It is in execution of the aforesaid judgment and decree that the learned court below, vide order dated 7.1.2012, had directed the revenue authorities to enter mutation in terms of the sale deed executed in favour of the respondentplaintiff. The sale deed was got executed by the court by appointment of a Local Commissioner.

¶17

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the court has exceeded its jurisdiction has no weight. Once the sale deed has been executed in favour of the respondent-decree holder in terms of the decree passed by the learned lower appellate court, entering of mutation on the basis thereof is consequential. The parties cannot be left to litigate only for that purpose. Pendency of any review application against the order correcting certain numbers in the decree also cannot be said to be a good ground for stay of the order passed by the learned court below.

¶18

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

¶19

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶20

28.3.2012 mk

Om Pati and Ors. v. Sat Narain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Pati and Ors. v. Sat Narain

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

Naresh Mittal Vs Mahender Singh and Another

Ajit Singh Vs Meera Bai & Ors.

Sucha Singh Vs Har Gopal Gupta

Babu Ram & Ors. Vs Durga Mandir & Ors.

Amar Singh and Anr. Vs Jagwinder Singh and Anr.

Rakesh Sethi Vs Subhash Sethi