Partly allowed

Satinder Singh v. Sukhwant Kaur and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Mar 2024CR/1678/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition against an order scheduling an auction of attached land, the High Court held it was not appropriate to intervene directly. Instead, the petitioner was directed to approach the executing court under Order 21 Rule 69 CPC to deposit the decretal amount and costs to stop the sale before the hammer falls.

What did the court decide?

Auction kept in abeyance till 4:30 PM on 18.03.2024; petitioner directed to deposit decretal amount plus costs with executing court by that time to stop sale.

Satinder Singh Vs Sukhwant Kaur and Others — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

2024:PHHC:037980

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

140

¶4

CR-1678-2024 Date of Decision: 15.03.2024

Satinder Singh

….Petitioner

Versus

Sukhwant Kaur and others

¶9

….Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

¶11

Present: Mr. Robin Singh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral)

¶14

This revision petition under Article 277 of the Constitution of India has been filed by judgment debtor – Satinder Singh, aggrieved by order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur, whereby the executing court while disposing of the application filed under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC by the respondent/decree-holder, for issuance of proclamation of intended sale of attached land measuring 92 Kanals 19 Marlas, has ordered sale of the same, which auction is now scheduled for 18.03.2024.

¶15

The respondent-plaintiff/judgment holders had filed a suit for decree of recovery of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh) as compensation/ damages for causing death of Kulwant Singh son of Jagtar Singh, resident of village Khai Pheme Ki, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.

¶16

SHRUTI 2024.03.16 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶17

�� 

¶18

The said suit was partly decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.2016 and plaintiffs were held entitled for recovery of Rs.15 lakh from all the defendants in equal share being compensation on account of murder of Kulwant Singh deceased by the defendants. The above detailed land has since been attached and is sought to be sold in auction to satisfy the aforesaid decree dated 30.07.2016.

¶19

It is submitted that pursuant to the order dated 06.12.2019 the sale did not take place as no bidder came forward at the auction scheduled for 06.01.2020. The counsel for the decree holders suffered a statement with regard to the report that nobody is ready to bid and the execution petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.01.2020 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, a fresh execution application was filed but the same was adjourned on several occasions on account of administrative instructions passed during the period of covid-19 pandemic. Vide order dated 09.04.2021 (page-50 of the paper-book) fresh proclamation of the sale was issued. The auction was scheduled for 28.05.2021 but the land in question could not be sold for want of bidders at the auction on the said date as well as on several occasions thereafter i.e. 29.10.2021, 14.01.2022, 13.06.2022, 26.10.2022, 25.11.2022, 05.01.2023, 06.04.0203, 15.05.2023, 13.07.2023, 25.08.2023, 10.10.2023, 12.01.2024 and 12.02.2024. Vide order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-6) the auction is now scheduled for 18.03.2024.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner-JD submits that the aforesaid decree for recovery of Rs.15 lakh has yet not attained finality

¶21

SHRUTI 2024.03.16 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶22

��

¶23

�� 

¶24

and challenge to the same is pending consideration before this Court in Regular Second Appeal. However, there is no denial to the fact that no stay of operation of the decree in question has been passed by the appellate Court or of the sale by way of auction by any Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/ judgment debtor, as per the decree in question is liable only to the extent of his share, being one amongst the six defendants. As per the decree, the respondent-plaintiffs were held entitled for recovery of Rs.15 lakhs from all the defendants in equal share being compensation on account of murder of Kulwant Singh-deceased by the defendants. It is further submitted that the liability for the said recovery was not joint or several. One of the defendant-judgment debtors viz., Gurdev Singh has since died. Nonetheless, in order to save the land in question from going under the hammer and being sold in distress, at a price much lower than the actual market value, the petitioner without prejudice to his rights in the pending appeal (RSA) is ready and willing to deposit the entire decretal amount along with costs of the sale before the executing Court for stoppage of sale.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record with his able assistance.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn notice to the provisions under Order 21 Rule 69 CPC, which read as thus:

¶28

69. Adjournment or stoppage of sale.— (1) The Court may, in its discretion, adjourn any sale hereunder to a specified day and hour, and the officer conducting any such

¶29

SHRUTI 2024.03.16 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

��

��

��

sale may in his discretion adjourn the sale, recording his reasons for such adjournment:

¶34

Provided that, where the sale is made in, or within the precincts of, the court house, no such adjournment shall be made without the leave of the Court.

¶35

(2) Where a sale is adjourned under sub-rule (1) for a longer period than thirty days a fresh proclamation under Rule 67 shall be made, unless the judgment-debtor consents to waive it.

¶36

(3) Every sale shall be stopped if, before the lot is knocked down, the debt and costs (including the costs of the sale) are tendered to the officer conducting the sale, or proof is given to his satisfaction that the amount of such debt and costs has been paid into the Court which ordered the sale.

¶37

Admittedly, the decree in question is for recovery of an

¶38

amount of Rs.15 lakh passed against six defendants/judgment debtors; recoverable form all of them in equal shares. It is contended in the reply filed to the application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC that the market value of the land in the area of village Kamaldeen Niazia is about 16/17 lakh per acre, whereas the entire land measuring 92 kanals 19 marlas has been projected by the decree holders to be Rs.25 lakhs. Despite having made attempts on numerous occasions earlier to sell the attached land by way of auction, it has not yielded any fruitful result. The petitioner has now come forward to satisfy the decree by making deposit of the decretal amount along with costs of sale, which may be assessed by the executing Court, though for stoppage of the sale. He claims that the land in question is jointly held and he is only a co-sharer in the same.

¶39

A perusal of the afore-noticed provisions would show that the same are intended to grant an opportunity the judgment debtor, to

¶40

SHRUTI 2024.03.16 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

��

��

��

deposit the debt and costs, before the fall of the hammer at the auction, as a last minute effort for stoppage of the sale. It is evident that the said provision speaks in favour to avoid sale by way of auction, if the decreetal amount including costs of the sale are deposited with the Court that had ordered the sale.

¶45

In the light of the above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this revision petition relegating the petitioner to approach the learned executing Court by way of an appropriate application under the above noticed provisions and for depositing the entire decretal amount along with the costs of the sale, as may be assessed by the said Court, on or before 18.03.2024. On doing his so, it is expected that the learned executing Court would take up the said application for consideration without delay and pass appropriate orders thereupon, in accordance with law.

¶46

Keeping in view that the auction is scheduled for 18.03.2024, the land to be auctioned would be at some distance from the concerned Court and no specific time thereof has been specified in the proclamation of sale, it may not be pragmatic to furnish proof of making the deposit as aforesaid to the officer conducting the sale before the lot is knocked down, accordingly, the auction scheduled for 18.03.2024 be kept in abeyance till 4.30 pm on that day and would be subject to further orders as may be passed by the executing Court in that regard. However, if the petitioner fails to avail of this order by making the aforesaid deposit with the executing Court on or before 18.03.2024, he shall be further

¶47

SHRUTI 2024.03.16 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

��

��

��

liable to payment of costs in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, to be paid to the respondent/decree holders.

¶52

The revision petition is disposed of in the terms aforesaid.

¶53

(VIKAS SURI) March 15, 2024 JUDGE Sangeeta Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶54

SHRUTI 2024.03.16 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Satinder Singh v. Sukhwant Kaur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satinder Singh v. Sukhwant Kaur and Others

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

Rshmi Khetrapal @ Rashmi Khetrapal Vs Akhilesh Kumar

Pragati Vs Deepak

Monika Vs Ajay Bhatt and Another

Mehtab Ahmed Vs Punjab Wakf Board and Ors.

Ramkanwar Alais Ram Kumar Vs Sub Divisional Officer and Others

Meenakshi Vs Mahesh