Dismissed¶¶44

Jaswinder Singh v. Gurpreet Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Aug 2025CR/5656/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution objections dismissed; ejectment decree execution; Rent Controller order 28.10.2014; Appellate Authority dismissal 30.04.2016; agreements to sell 29.12.1992, 16.06.1994, 05.06.1998; Rs.8 lakh sale consideration; FIR forgery acquittal; pending suit for specific performance; executing court cannot go beyond decree; warrants of possession 08.09.2017; CR-5007-2016 dismissed; RSA No.1767 of 2016 dismissed 15.11.2018; CR-5656-2017(O&M); High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Justice Archana Puri; decision 20 August 2025; revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The eviction proceedings have since been decided against the petitioner-JD and the ejectment orders passed have been upheld up to this Court, the connected revision petition (CR-5007-2016) having been dismissed by this Court the same day. ¶¶38

Jaswinder Singh Vs Gurpreet Singh — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Executing Court rightly dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner (JD) asserting ownership based on agreements to sell, acquittal in the criminal case, and pendency of a suit for specific performance, i.e., whether such averments can be considered afresh in execution proceedings. +1 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

¶¶38

Ratio / Principle

It has been correctly observed that the objections now raised were already considered by the Court while passing the ejectment orders.

¶¶39

Key takeaways

Even though the suit for specific performance may be pending, the Executing Court cannot comment upon the same; it is only to comply with the eviction order passed by the Court, which has been upheld.ratio¶¶39
Any other litigation pending between the parties, on the basis of the agreements to sell in question, shall have no bearing on the execution petition, which relates to the ejectment orders.ratio¶¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Archana Puri, J.), CR-5656-2017(O&M), decided 20.08.2025 — Civil revision against an Executing Court's order of 31.07.2017 dismissing the judgment debtor's execution objections is dismissed. Tenant Jaswinder Singh had objected to execution of the ejectment decree (Rent Controller, 28.10.2014; Appellate Authority dismissal, 30.04.2016) claiming ownership via agreements to sell dated 29.12.1992, 16.06.1994 and 05.06.1998 for total consideration of Rs.8 lakh, his acquittal in an FIR alleging forgery of the agreements, and a pending suit for specific performance; he further disputed Gurpreet Singh's parentage. The Executing Court held these averments had already been considered during the ejectment proceedings and that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree, issuing warrants of possession for 08.09.2017. The High Court upheld this: the connected revision CR-5007-2016 was dismissed the same day, the declaration suit and its appeal had failed, and RSA No.1767 of 2016 was dismissed on 15.11.2018. Held: pending specific-performance or other litigation founded on the agreements to sell has no bearing on execution of the ejectment decree; the executing court merely complies with the upheld eviction order; the impugned order warranted no interference and the revision petition was dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CR-5656-2017(O&M) Date of Decision: August 20, 2025

¶3

Jaswinder Singh through his LRs

...Petitioner

Versus

Gurpreet Singh

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶9

Present: Mr.Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Arshdeep Bhullar, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

¶12

ARCHANA PURI, J.

¶13

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 31.07.2017, whereby, the objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed by learned Executing Court.

¶14

In pursuance of the notice issued, respondent made appearance

¶15

through counsel.

¶16

Learned counsel for the parties heard.

¶17

The facts germane, to be noticed, are as follows:-

¶18

That, initially, respondent-Gurpreet Singh had filed ejectment petition, thereby, seeking ejectment of petitioner-Jaswinder Singh from the demised premises, on the ground of arrears of rent and ground of subletting

¶19

VINEET GULATI 2025.08.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CR-5656-2017

¶21

-2-

¶22

of the premises to Hazara Singh.

¶23

On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned Rent Controller, vide judgment dated 28.10.2014 had ordered the ejectment of Jaswinder Singh and appeal filed thereupon, was also dismissed on 30.04.2016. CR-5007-2016 was filed before this Court, which was pending at the time of filing of the revision petition in hand. However, CR-50072016 has been dismissed by this Court, today itself.

¶24

To seek possession, on the basis of the ejectment order passed, execution petition was filed. During the pendency of the said execution petition, objections were filed by the petitioner, thereby, asserting his right of ownership, on the basis of the agreements to sell dated 29.12.1992, 16.06.1994 and 05.06.1998 and having purchased the property, on the basis thereof, for total sale consideration of Rs.8 lakh. Furthermore, it was asserted in the objections, about the decree holder, having got lodged FIR against the petitioner-JD and others and order of acquittal was passed by the Court and it was held that agreements to sell are genuine.

¶25

Further, the suit for specific performance, on the basis of the agreements to sell was also filed and the same is pending. Therein also, parentage of Gurpreet Singh, as asserted, was also questioned. He was asserted to be never born to Hardyal Kaur. In fact, Krishna Kaur was his mother, who never married Kartar Singh, with whom, agreements to sell, as such, were executed and who had earlier let out the property to the petitioner-JD.

¶26

Though, reply to the said objections was not filed, but however,

¶27

VINEET GULATI 2025.08.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

CR-5656-2017

¶29

-3-

¶30

learned Executing Court, after appraising the material brought on record, has observed, as herein given:-

¶31

“5. Admittedly, the JD has filed the appeal against the order of trial Court dated 28.10.2014. The appellant Court has also dismissed the appeal filed by the JD. The appellant Court has held that there is no illegality and irregularity in the order of the trial Court and the said appeal was dismissed with costs. However, three months time was granted to the tenant/objector to hand over the possession of demised premises to the DH. Admittedly, the JD has filed RSA in Hon'ble High Court against the order of appellant Court and admittedly in Hon'ble High Court no stay is there in execution of order of trial Court. The objector has averred in the objection that in the criminal case which was registered against them by DH for forgery of agreement they have been acquitted and it was held that the agreements were genuine and secondly he has filed suit for specific relief Act on the basis of agreement to sell dated 29.12.1992 and 16.06.1997 which is pending in the Court of Sh. Jagmeet Singh.

¶32

6. All these facts as alleged by the Objector in the present application has already been considered by the trial Court and appellant Court and gave detailed finding. Now, these averments cannot be taken/considered afresh in the execution proceedings. Merely pendency of suit for specific relief Act in another Court or acquittal in criminal case will not affect the proceedings in the present executing Court. Moreover, the present Court is an executing Court and the executing Court has to execute the decree and executing Court cannot go beyond the decree.

¶33

VINEET GULATI 2025.08.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

CR-5656-2017

¶35

-4-

¶36

7. Hence, there are no merits in objections filed by the Objector and the same is hereby dismissed. Let warrants of possession be issued for 08.09.2017.

¶37

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of objections, present revision petition has been filed.

¶38

It is pertinent to mention that very correctly, learned Executing Court has observed about the ejectment order passed by learned Rent Controller on 28.10.2014 and appeal having also dismissed by learned Appellate Authority. In this regard, it is further pertinent to mention that today itself, the revision petition filed before this Court, has also been dismissed by this Court. So far as, eviction proceedings are concerned, the same have since been decided against the petitioner-JD. In the aforesaid manner, the ejectment orders passed, has been upheld upto to this Court. Even, from the material brought on, it is evident that suit for declaration for asserting right, on the basis of the agreements to sell, was filed by the petitioner-JD and the same has also been dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal was also dismissed and even RSA No.1767 of 2016 has also been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 15.11.2018.

¶39

In the given circumstances, even though, the suit for specific performance may be pending, the Executing Court, as such, cannot comment upon the same. It is only to comply with the eviction order passed by the Court, which has been upheld. In the light of the same, it has been correctly observed about the objections, now raised, to have been already considered by the Court, while passing the ejectment orders.

¶40

VINEET GULATI 2025.08.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶41

CR-5656-2017

¶42

-5-

¶43

Simultaneously, any other litigation pending between the parties, on the basis of the agreements to sell in question, shall have no bearing on the execution petition, which relates to the ejectment orders. Consequently, the impugned order warrants no interference.

¶44

Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.

¶45

August 20, 2025 (ARCHANA PURI) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No

¶46

VINEET GULATI 2025.08.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 31.07.2017 dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner (judgment debtor) in the execution proceedings¶¶13
learned Executing Court · 31.07.2017
Prior proceeding
Respondent-Gurpreet Singh filed an ejectment petition seeking ejectment of petitioner-Jaswinder Singh from the demised premises on grounds of arrears of rent and subletting of the premises to Hazara Singh¶¶18
Prior proceeding
Learned Rent Controller ordered ejectment of Jaswinder Singh vide judgment dated 28.10.2014; the appeal filed thereupon was dismissed on 30.04.2016¶¶23
Prior proceeding
CR-5007-2016 was filed before this Court against the ejectment orders and was pending when the present revision petition was filed; it was dismissed by this Court on the same day as the present decision¶¶23
Prior proceeding
An execution petition was filed to seek possession on the basis of the ejectment order, and during its pendency objections were filed by the petitioner¶¶24
Prior proceeding
In the objections, the petitioner asserted his right of ownership on the basis of agreements to sell dated 29.12.1992, 16.06.1994 and 05.06.1998¶¶24
Prior proceeding
The petitioner asserted he had purchased the property on the basis of the agreements to sell for a total sale consideration of Rs.8 lakh¶¶24
Prior proceeding
The objections also asserted that the decree holder had lodged an FIR against the petitioner-JD and others, that an order of acquittal was passed, and that the agreements to sell were held genuine¶¶24
Prior proceeding
A suit for specific performance based on the agreements to sell was filed and remains pending; therein the parentage of Gurpreet Singh was also questioned (asserted never born to Hardyal Kaur; Krishna Kaur said to be his mother, who never married Kartar Singh)¶¶25
Prior proceeding
The learned Executing Court found no merits in the objections, dismissed them, and directed issuance of warrants of possession for 08.09.2017¶¶36
Prior proceeding
A suit for declaration asserting right on the basis of the agreements to sell, filed by the petitioner-JD, was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal was also dismissed¶¶38
Prior proceeding
RSA No.1767 of 2016 arising from the declaration suit was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 15.11.2018¶¶38

Jaswinder Singh v. Gurpreet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswinder Singh v. Gurpreet 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

Monisha Alias Mohnisha Vs Vishal

Jagdeep Kaur Vs Rajinder Singh

Ravinder Kumar Kohli Vs Promod Kumar Kohli and Others

Manju Vs Rajni Kant

Jaswinder Singh Vs Gurpreet Singh

Mehak Sharma Vs Naresh Kumar Thaman