Judgment-debtor challenged dismissal of his execution objections claiming payment of the decretal amount to one decree-holder under receipts. Court upheld the Executing Court's finding that a handwriting expert had opined the receipts bore copied forgery, unrebutted by the objector's expert, and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.998 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.05.2024
Sukhdev Singh
…Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Gurmeet Kaur & others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present:Ms. Neha Randhawa, Advocate appearing for Mr. Armaan Gagneja, Advocate for the revisionist-petitioner.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J. (ORAL)
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur (for short ‘the Executing Court’) on 31.01.2024 in Execution Petition No.25 of 2020 titled as ‘Gurmeet Kaur etc versus Sukhdev Singh’ , whereby the Objection Petition moved by the petitioner/ Judgement-Debtor (herein-in-after to be referred as ‘the JD’) has been dismissed, he (JD) has chosen to prefer the instant revision-petition to lay challenge to the same.
YAG DUTT 2024.06.27 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
CR No.998 of 2024 (O&M) -2-
one of the respondents/Decree-Holders and she had executed the receipts, Exhibited as JDW1/A and JDW1/B, to acknowledge this payment but she did not even step into the witness-box to deny the afore-said facts and the Executing Court has gravely erred in ignoring the above-discussed material and crucial aspects of the matter and has wrongly dismissed the objection petition and thus, it becomes explicit that the impugned order is not legally sustainable and hence, the same is liable to be set-aside.
YAG DUTT 2024.06.27 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
CR No.998 of 2024 (O&M) -3-
his report Exhibit DHW2/1 that her disputed signatures, as appearing on the above-mentioned receipts, were the product of copied forgery. The JD has not examined any such expert as his witness, so as to falsify/rebut the aforediscussed report/opinion and to prove to the contrary. It being so, the factum of non-examination of Harjinder Kaur as witness, pales into insignificance.
May 15, 2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: No
YAG DUTT 2024.06.27 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Executing Court erred in dismissing the judgment-debtor's objection petition claiming he had paid the decretal amount to one decree-holder on the basis of alleged receipts.
Sukhdev Singh
Gurmeet Kaur
Meenakshi I. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
