Allowed

(O&M) Bhupinder Singh & Anor. v. Prem Kumar Dhawan & Anor.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Oct 2012CR/6748/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition under Article 226, the High Court held that the dismissing of an amendment application in an execution petition suffered from illegality. The court emphasized that the amendment was necessary to resolve the dispute regarding property location and ownership, allowing it subject to costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the executing court set aside; amendment application allowed subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 as costs.

(O&M) Bhupinder Singh & Anor. Vs Prem… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.R. No.6748 of 2008

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No. 6748 of 2008

¶5

Date of Decision : October 15, 2012

¶6

Bhupinder Singh & another

¶7

...... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Prem Kumar Dhawan & another

¶10

...... Respondents

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

Present : Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶14

Mr. Sashikant Gupta, Advocate for Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶15

¶16

L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)

¶17

In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, objectors have assailed order dated 29.09.2008 (Annexure P-1/A), passed by the executing court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-4) moved by the objectors/petitioners for amendment of their objection petition (Annexure P-2).

¶18

Suit filed by respondent No.1 Prem Kumar Dhawan (Decree holder-DH) against proforma respondent No.2 Brij Kumari/defendant (Judgment Debtor-JD) was decreed vide decree dated 15.03.1995 (Anneuxre P-6) for possession by specific performance of agreement to sell regarding Kothi bearing Khanna Shumari No.27/13, measuring 138 feet x 73 feet with area of 1119 square yards being part of khasra Nos.9963 and 9964, situated at Yaseen Road, Amritsar. DH filed execution petition for executing the said decree.

¶19

C.R. No.6748 of 2008

¶20

¶21

In the execution petition, petitioners herein Bhupinder Singh and his wife Sukhraj Kaur filed objections (Annexure P-2) under Order 21, Rule 97 and 99 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, alleging that they have purchased property bearing No.27-B, out of khasra Nos.3456/963-964/2 min, Yaseen Road, Urban Circle No.110 Cemetery Road, Near Anam Cinema, Amritsar from one Manjit Kaur vide two sale deeds dated 06.09.2005.

¶22

By moving amendment application (Annexure P-4), the objectors want to plead that suit of DH has been decreed regarding khasra Nos.9963 and 9964 whereas objectors are in possession of property No.27-B out of khasra Nos.3456/963 and 964/2 min and, therefore, objectors have no objection if the decree is executed regarding khasra Nos. 9963 and 9964 mentioned in the decree sheet.

¶23

DH by filing reply (Annexure P-5) opposed the amendment application alleging that his suit has been decreed regarding property bearing Kothi No.27 situated at Yaseen Road, Amritsar and even if khasra numbers are not correctly mentioned in the decree, it does not affect his rights. Various other pleas were also raised.

¶24

Learned Executing Court vide impugned order (Anenxure P-1/A) has dismissed the amendment application, moved by objectors, who have, therefore, filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

¶25

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

¶26

All the details of the property allegedly purchased by objectors from Manjit Kaur have already been mentioned in original objection petition (Anneuxre P-2). By amendment the petitioners only want to add

¶27

C.R. No.6748 of 2008

¶28

¶29

that they have no objection if the decree is executed regarding khasra Nos.9963 and 9964 mentioned in the decree. However, stand of the DH is that the decree is regarding Kothi No.27 and even if wrong khasra numbers are mentioned in the decree, it would not affect his rights.

¶30

From the aforesaid, it is manifest that the dispute appears to be regarding location of the suit property mentioned in the decree and location of the property purchased by the objectors and it has also to be decided as to whether objectors' vendor Manjit Kaur was owner or JD was owner of the suit property. Consequently, proposed amendment of objection petition is essential for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The said amendment should have been allowed on payment of costs so as to compensate the DH for the delay which would be caused by proposed amendment of the objection petition.

¶31

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that impugned order of the executing court suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error. Accordingly, instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order (Annexure P-1/A) passed by the executing court is set aside. Amendment application (Annexure P-4), moved by the petitioners, is allowed and petitioners are permitted to make proposed amendment in their objection petition (Annexure P-2) subject to payment of `10,000/- as costs precedent.

¶32

( L.N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶33

15.10.2012 Anand

(O&M) Bhupinder Singh & Anor. v. Prem Kumar Dhawan & Anor.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Bhupinder Singh & Anor. v. Prem Kumar Dhawan & Anor.

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

(O&M) Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Chand Singh etc.

Hemant Shahpuri and Anr. Vs Raj Kumar and Ors.

M/S National Rice Traders Vs Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Hukam Singh Vs Maghar Singh and Ors.

Hukam Singh Vs Maghar Singh & Ors.

Gurmit Singh Vs Madan Lal