M/S Charanji Lal Raj Kumar Vs Mohinder Singh — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

M/S Charanji Lal Raj Kumar Vs Mohinder Singh — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-8) set aside; one effective opportunity to the petitioner-Decree Holder to file list of the respondent-JD's properties before the Executing Court, subject to costs of Rs. 20,000/- to the Poor Patients' Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh, within two weeks; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure P-5), 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-7) and 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-8) of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal — culminating in dismissal of the Execution Petition for want of prosecution — should be set aside in this Article 227 revision. +2 more

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-8), dismissing the Execution Petition for want of prosecution, is hereby set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner-Decree Holder is granted one effective opportunity to file the list of property of the respondent-Judgment Debtor before the learned Executing Court, subject to costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited in the Poor Patients' Welfare Fund of PGIMER, Chandigarh, within two weeks.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Nidhi Gupta, J., oral), CR-813-2025, decision 07.02.2025 — Article 227 revision by decree-holder M/s Charanji Lal Raj Kumar Commission Agent against Mohinder Singh (Judgment-Debtor). Prayer to set aside orders dt. 13.11.2024 (P-5), 04.12.2024 (P-7) and 09.12.2024 (P-8) of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Kaithal: (P-5) refusing warrants of sale over property released by the JD gratuitously to his wife and son (Vasika No. 3781/1, 03.10.2012) as a fraudulent Section 53 TPA transfer although it pre-dated the suit (filed 06.08.2013; decree 30.01.2018 — Rs. 7,32,000 claimed, Rs. 6,00,000 decreed @ 8%; appeal pending, unstayed); (P-7) rejecting review; (P-8) dismissing execution for want of prosecution for failure to produce the JD's property list. Counsel relied on Waryam Singh @ Baryam Singh v. Rameshwar Dass, CR-2504-1985 (Section 52 lis pendens operates post-suit; Section 53 pre-suit). HELD: only the 09.12.2024 order set aside; one effective opportunity to file the property list, subject to Rs. 20,000/- costs (Poor Patients' Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh, within two weeks). The fraudulent-transfer / Section 52 vs 53 TPA contention was not adjudicated; the earlier orders were left intact.

CR-813-2025 -1-

IN THE H I GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 116 CR- 8 13-2025

Dat e of Decision: 07.02.2025

M/s Chara n ji Lal Raj Kumar Commission A gent .… Petitioner

Versus

Mohinder S ingh .... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advoca t e for the petitioner.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in this revision petitio n filed under Article 227 of the Constituti o n of India, is for setting aside t he orders dated (i) 13.11.2024 (Annexure P-5); (ii) 04.12.2024 (Anne x ure P-7) and (iii) 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned A dditional Civil Judge (Senior Division), K aithal.

It is the case of the petitioner/ p laintiff/Decree-Holder that the

sole resp o ndent/defendant/Judgment-De b tor had taken a loan of ₹7,32,000/ - along with agreed pendente lit e and future interest @ 18% per annum fro m the petitioner on dated 15.05.2012. As, the respondent had failed to r epay the loan, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of ₹7,32,000/ - against the respondent along with interest thereupon. Vide judgment a nd decree dated 30.01.2018 ( A nnexure P-1), the said suit was decreed al o ng with pendente lite and futu r e interest @ 8% per annum on the principal amount of ₹6,00,000/-. Bein g aggrieved, the respondent had filed an a p peal against the aforesaid judg m ent and decree Annexure P-1 which is p e nding adjudication before the I s t Appellate Court, however, no

RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.10 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CR-813-2025

-2-

stay was g r anted. Accordingly, the petitio n er-Decree Holder had filed an Execution Petition (Annexure P-2) in w hich the respondent had filed objections (Annexure P-3). In the meanti m e vide Vasika No. 3781/1 dated 03.10.201 2 , the respondent-defendant h a d executed a release deed in favour of h is wife and son, without receivi n g any consideration.

It is the case of the petiti o ner that the said transfer is fraudulent in nature. Accordingly, he fi l ed an application praying for issuance o f warrants of sale qua the said p r operty. In the said application, vide order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P- 4 ), the learned Executing Court, had staye d the execution of the sale of t he property transferred by the responden t -JD in favour of his wife and s o n. However, subsequently, the said appli c ation of the petitioner was dis m issed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 13.11.2024 (Annex u re P-5), on the ground that the transfer ha d been made by the respondent on 03.10.2012 which was prior to filing o f the suit by the petitioner on 06. 0 8.2013. The learned Executing Court had observed that therefore, it is n o t a fraudulent transfer and the same is not hit by the principle of Lis-Pe n dens. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a nother application (Annexure P-6) for review of the order that 13.11.202 4 , which was also dismissed vide order dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-7). Subsequently, vide imp u gned order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-8), the Execution petition its e lf has been dismissed for want of prosecu t ion as, the petitioner had faile d to produce copy of the list of properties o f the respondent/Judgment-De b tor.

Learned counsel for the petit i oner relies upon a judgment of this Court in CR-2504-1985, ‘Waryam Singh @ Baryam Singh vs.

Rameshwar Dass and others’, decided o n 02.03.1989, to contend that as

RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.10 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CR-813-2025

-3-

per Sectio n 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short-‘the Act’), in case, it i s found that the transfer of im m ovable property has been made by the Jud g ment-Debtor with an intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the transf e ror shall be voidable at the option of the creditor. It is contended that Section 52 of Act comes i nto play after the filing of the suit where a s Section 53 of the Act would b e operative prior to filing of the suit.

No other argument has been r a ised by learned counsel for the

petitioner.

I have heard learned counse l for the appellant and perused the case file in great detail.

Keeping in view the entire f acts and circumstances of the case as ca n vassed above, as also the lega l submissions of the petitioner, the impug n ed order dated 09.12.2024 (An n exure P-8) is hereby set aside. It is direc t ed that the petitioner-Decree H older be granted one effective opportunit y to file the list of property of t h e respondent-Judgment Debtor, if any bef o re the learned Executing Cou r t; however, subject to costs of ₹20,000/- t o be deposited by the petitione r in the “Poor Patients’ Welfare Fund of t h e Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER ) , Chandigarh”, within two wee k s from today.

The instant revision petition s t ands disposed of, accordingly. Pending application(s), if any , shall also stand disposed of.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.10 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Three orders sought to be set aside: (i) 13.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) dismissing the petitioner's warrants-of-sale/fraudulent-transfer application; (ii) 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-7) dismissing the review; and (iii) 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-8) dismissing the Execution Petition for want of prosecution — passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal.¶10
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal · 09.12.2024
Prior proceeding
Respondent/defendant/Judgment-Debtor took a loan of Rs. 7,32,000/- with agreed pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the petitioner on 15.05.2012.¶12
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's suit for recovery of Rs. 7,32,000/- decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018 (Annexure P-1) with pendente lite and future interest @ 8% per annum on the principal of Rs. 6,00,000/-.¶12
Prior proceeding
Respondent's appeal against decree Annexure P-1 pending adjudication before the Ist Appellate Court.¶12
Prior proceeding
No stay was granted; petitioner-Decree Holder filed Execution Petition (Annexure P-2), to which respondent filed objections (Annexure P-3).¶16
Prior proceeding
Pending execution, respondent-defendant executed a release deed Vasika No. 3781/1 dated 03.10.2012 in favour of his wife and son without consideration.¶16
Prior proceeding
On the petitioner's application for warrants of sale alleging the transfer fraudulent, the Executing Court stayed sale-execution of the transferred property vide order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P-4).¶17
Prior proceeding
The said application was dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure P-5).¶17
Prior proceeding
Ground of dismissal: the transfer was made on 03.10.2012, prior to filing of the suit by the petitioner on 06.08.2013.¶17
Prior proceeding
Executing Court's consequent finding: the transfer is not a fraudulent transfer and is not hit by the principle of lis pendens.¶17
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's review application (Annexure P-6) against the order dated 13.11.2024 was dismissed vide order dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-7).¶17
Prior proceeding
Vide impugned order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-8) the Execution Petition itself was dismissed for want of prosecution — the petitioner having failed to produce copy of the list of properties of the respondent/Judgment-Debtor.¶17