Third-party objector challenged orders dismissing his execution objections to a decree holder's ex parte specific performance decree without framing issues or evidence. High Court set aside both orders and directed the Executing Court to frame issues, allow evidence, and decide objections afresh.
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.
�� ESA-5-2016 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ESA-5-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision: September 24, 2024
Ved Parkash … Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Kumar and another …Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Prashant Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1 (Through Video Conferencing).
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Appellant herein is the third party objector. The objec%ons filed by him were dismissed by the Execu%ng Court on 20.04.2015 and the said order has been affirmed by the Appellate court, by dismissing his appeal, on 01.12.2015.
2.1 Narra%ng the background of the case, learned counsel for the appellant contends that land measuring 34 Bigha 17 biswa was owned by three brothers, Pakhar Dass, Narain Dass and Shan% Parkash to the extent of 1/3 share each. By virtue of a decree dated 06.04.1991, Narain Dass transferred his 1/3 share in favour of Shan% Parkash and as such, Shan% Parkash became co-sharer of 2/3 share in the total land, i.e. to the extent of 23 Bigha 4 biswa. Said Shan% Parkash executed a registered sale deed on 28.04.1993 in respect of land measuring 5 Bigha comprised in Khasra No.502 min in favour of Des Raj S/o Dharam Pal.
2.2 Shan% Parkash also executed an agreement to sell on the same date, i.e. 28.04.1993 in favour of appellant – Ved Parkash qua
Page no.1 out of 4 pages
Sarita Rani 2024.09.26 04:53 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
�� ESA-5-2016 (O&M)
Khasra No.501 min measuring 5 Bigha for total considera%on of ₹62,500/-. Target date for execu%on of the sale deed was agreed to be 27.04.1994. Before this target date, Shan% Parkash transferred his en%re share in the land in favour of his wife – Smt. Lajwan% by way of collusive decree dated 24.11.1994 and then refused to execute the sale deed in favour of appellant – Ved Parkash in terms of the agreement dated 28.04.1993, compelling the appellant to file a suit for specific performance of agreement against both Shan% Parkash and his wife Lajwan%.
2.3 On the other hand, said Shan% Parkash and Lajwan%, on behalf of their minor children, challenged the sale deed dated 28.04.1993 and also the decree dated 24.11.1993. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 05.03.2002.
2.4 Suit for specific performance filed by appellant – Ved Parkash was decreed on 28.04.1994 and during pendency of the appeal, Shan% Parkash & Lajwan% executed sale deed dated 14.08.2002 in terms of the decree dated 07.05.2002 in favour of appellant – Ved Parkash and handed over the possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.501 min measuring 5 Bigha to him. Lajwan% then withdrew her appeal.
2.5 Later on, Lajwan% sold another 1 Bigha and 14 Biswa of land comprised in Khasra Nos.495, 496, 497 and 1540/502 to the appellant vide sale deed dated 28.11.2003 and this way, by virtue of the previous sale deed dated 14.08.2002 and this sale deed dated 28.11.2003, appellant became owner of 06 Bigha 14 Biswa of land.
Page no.2 out of 4 pages
Sarita Rani 2024.09.26 04:53 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
�� ESA-5-2016 (O&M)
performance on 09.05.2006 against his rela%ve Smt. Lajwan%, i.e. a>er 12 years from the alleged agreement to sell. Lajwan% was proceeded against ex parte . That suit also included the land, earlier sold to the appellant by Lajwan%. Suit filed by Ramesh Kumar was decreed ex parte on 15.02.2010 and based thereon, said Ramesh Kumar (now decree holder – contes�ng respondent herein) filed execu%on. Appellant filed objec%ons in the execu%on by claiming to be owner in possession of 06 Bigha 14 Biswa of land, but without framing any issues and without providing any opportunity to the appellant to prove his stand, the trial Court dismissed the said third party objec%ons on 20.04.2015 and that order has been upheld by the Appellate Court on 1.12.2015.
Page no.3 out of 4 pages
Sarita Rani 2024.09.26 04:53 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
�� ESA-5-2016 (O&M)
Allowed.
September 24, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
Page no.4 out of 4 pages
Sarita Rani 2024.09.26 04:53 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
2 issues framed by the court
Were the third-party objections dismissed without framing issues or affording opportunity to lead evidence, warranting interference?
Could the appellant's claim be decided only through execution objections under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC rather than an independent suit?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ved Parkash
Ramesh Kumar
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
