Dhani Ram Garg Vs Paramjit Singh

¶1

CR-5320-2025 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

110 CR-5320-2025 Date of Decision:08.08.2025 Dhani Ram Ga r g ... Petition Versus

¶4

Dhani Ram Ga r g ... Petition e r Versus Paramjit Singh ... Respond e nt

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

¶6

Present: M r . Pawan K. Longia, Advocate fo r the petitioner.

¶7

¶8

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

¶9

T h e present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 o f the Constitution o f India for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.03. 2 025 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lud h iana whereby application/objections filed by the pet i tioner under Order 21 Rule 58 C PC have been dis m issed and the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P -10) vide which joi n t property of the petitioner has b een put to sale. 2. In brief, the facts, as culled out fr o m the revision petition, are tha t the respondent-Par a mjit Singh along with his real brother namely Gurpreet Singh had forged two sep a rate agreements to sell dated 1 7 .05.2013 showing therein petiti o ner as a seller of t w o different plots, which were n ever owned and possessed by h im. In both agree m ents, respondent-Paramjit Si n gh and Gurpreet Singh had p aid Rs.11,75,000/and Rs.12,00,000/- (total Rs.23,75,000/-) as earnest money in c ash to the petition e r. However, instead of filin g suit for specific performance, the respondent had filed suit for recovery of earne s t money along with interest @ 1 2% per annum on t he last day of limitation i.e. 1 6 .05.2016. The petitioner cont e sted the aforesaid s u it but the learned trial Court decreed the same vide judgment and

¶10

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶11

CR-5320-2025 -2-

¶12

decree dated 1 7 .11.2023 to recover Rs.12,00, 0 00/- from the petitioner along w ith interest @6% p er annum from 01.11.2014 till i ts realization. During the pend e ncy of the aforesai d civil suit, respondent-plaintiff h ad filed an application under O rder 38 Rule 5 CP C read with Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for attachment of proper t y of the petitioner, which was allowed vide orde r dated 18.08.2018. The afor e said judgment and d ecree of the learned trial Court h as been challenged in appeal b y the petitioner, which is pending consideration. Despite pendency of appeal, the respondent file d execution application stating t herein that no appeal has been f iled as per his kn o wledge. In the execution pr o ceedings, the petitioner had f iled objections bef o re the learned Executing Cour t but the same have been dismissed vide order dat e d 04.03.2025 and sale of the property has been ordered wit h out deciding the application under Order 21 Rule 6 6 CPC. On 30.07.2025, the lea r ned Executing Cou r t allowed the application filed b y the respondent-DH for sale o f the property of the petitioner, despite the fact that an application for adjournment was filed by the pe t itioner on the ground that revis i on petition is pending consider a tion before this Co u rt. Hence, the revision petition. 3. L e arned counsel for the petition e r submits that a compromise has already been e ffected between the parties f o r an amount Rs.22 lakhs and the respondent-pla i ntiff/DH has received half of the said amount and as such, the learned trial Court should not file the execu t ion application against the pr e sent petitioner for a u ctioning his half share in the p roperty jointly owned by him w ith his brother. T h e learned Executing Court has w rongly held that there is no b a r on the auction of h alf share in the joint property and that it is for the final own e r to apply for parti t ion of the property and not th e decree holder at this stage. The objections file d before the learned Executing C ourt have been dismissed and sale

¶13

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶14

CR-5320-2025 -3-

¶15

of the property has been ordered without deci d ing the application under Ord e r 21 Rule 66 CPC, thus, prays for setting aside of the impugned orders as menti o ned above.

¶16

3. H e ard.

¶17

A perusal of the record reveals t h at the compromise as alleged t o be effected betwe e n the parties was between Pa r amjit Singh and Gurpreet Sing h as first party and S anjay Kumar Aggarwal and Ja s pal Rai Singla as second party. The petitioner-JD w as not privy to the said comp r omise nor was he signatory t o the compromise d a ted 30.01.2019. In the absen c e of any compromise, decree was passed in favo u r of the respondent-DH for r e covery of Rs.12 lakhs along w ith interest @6% p er annum from the petitioner- J D from 01.12.2014 till realiza t ion. As the petitio n er failed to deposit the de c retal amount along with interest, respondent-D H has submitted the property of petitioner-JD before the Exec u ting Court and ther e after, having left no other opti o n, property of the petitioner jo i ntly owned by him w ith his brother has been put to a uction.

¶18

In view of the above, this Court fi n ds no illegality and infirmity i n the impugned ord e rs dated 04.03.2025 and 30.0 7 .2025 passed by the learned C ivil Judge (Junior D ivision), Ludhiana. Resultan t ly, the present revision petiti o n is dismissed.

¶19

	(A M	ARINDER SINGH GREWA JUDGE L)
August 08, 202 5
Pankaj*	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶20

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Dhani Ram Garg v. Paramjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhani Ram Garg v. Paramjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prfo.Yog Raj Handa Vs Improvement Trust Bathinda

United India Insuance Company Ltd. Vs Vimal Rani and Ors.

Mubina and Others Vs Nagendra Yadav and Others

Simar Harleen Singh Vs Atul Sood Deceased through Lr and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs Pawan Kumar and Others

Nathu Ram & Anr. Vs Bakshish Singh & Ors.