Dismissed

Raj Kaur and Anr. v. Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2015CR/3292/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the High Court disposed of a challenge against an order dismissing objections in execution proceedings. The petitioner, claiming a share in mortgaged property, challenged the executing court's view that their subsequent suit against relatives failed to negate the bank's decree.

What did the court decide?

The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed.

Raj Kaur and Anr. Vs Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 3292 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Civil Revision No. 3292 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.8.2015.

Raj Kaur and another

........Petitioners

Versus

Punjab and Sind Bank and others

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. J.S.Cooner, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. B.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

¶13

Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 6.

¶14

¶15

SABINA, J.

¶16

Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 8.4.2013 (Annexure P-1) whereby objections filed by the petitioners, were dismissed.

¶17

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

¶18

Respondent No. 1 had filed suit for recovery and the said suit was decreed by the Trial Court. In execution proceedings, petitioners filed objections on the ground that they were also co-owners of the suit land to the extent of 2/8^th share. The petitioners further pleaded that they had filed a civil suit against

¶19

GURPREET SINGH 2015.08.07 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

-2-

¶21

Civil Revision No. 3292 of 2013 (O&M)

¶22

their father and brothers for declaration that they were co-owners of the suit property to the extent of 2/8^th share and in the said suit, parties had been directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property till the decision of the case.

¶23

In the present case, the loan had been taken by the father and brothers of the petitioners from the bank-respondent No. 1. However, they had failed to repay the loan and, consequently, respondent No. 1 had filed suit for recovery. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court. It appears that now with a view to frustrate the decree, the petitioners have filed the suit claiming share in the property in question against their father and brothers by challenging the decree dated 3.10.1994 in the year 2011. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Executing Court had rightly dismissed the objections filed by the petitioners.

¶24

No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed.

¶25

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶26

August 04, 2015 Gurpreet

¶27

GURPREET SINGH 2015.08.07 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Raj Kaur and Anr. v. Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kaur and Anr. v. Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors.

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

Subhash Chander Vs Harjit Singh and Anr.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs Harwinder Singh and Ors.

Balwant Singh Thr His Lrs Rajwant Kaur and Ors. Vs Prem Singh and Ors.

Sonia Sharma Vs Varjinder Kaur

Sohan Lal Sharma and Anr. Vs Rajinder Sofat

Raj Kumar Vs Ranjeet Singh and Ors.