Gurmeet Kaur Since Deceased through Her Lr Vs Sukhdev Singh and Another

ESA-21-2026 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ESA-21-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2026

Gurmeet Kaur (since deceased) through her LR …Appellant Vs. Sukhdev Singh and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶5

Present: Mr. T u shar Sharma, Advocate for th e appellant.

¶6

Mr. H i tesh Verma, Advocate and Ms. R ajvinder Kaur, Advocate for re s pondent No.1/ Caveator.

¶7

¶8

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶9

By w a y of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to th e order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge , Barnala (hereina f ter referred to as “First Appellate Court” ), whereby th e appeal preferred by respondent No.1-decree h older was allowed, the orde r dated 29.08.201 6 passed by the learned Ex e cuting Court was set asid e and the executio n application preferred by re s pondent No.1-decree holde r was held to be within limitation. 2. Briefl y stated, Arjan Singh, predecessor-in-interest o f respondent No.1 - decree holder, instituted a s uit for specific performanc e qua the subject property, on the basis of a n agreement to sell date d 23.09.1987 exec u ted by respondent No.2/JD- D arshan Singh. The suit wa s decreed on 12.1 1 .1990. Darshan Singh pref e rred first appeal against th e said decree and d uring its pendency the decr e e remained stayed; the sai d appeal was dis m issed on merits on 27.08.1 9 93 and the Regular Secon d

¶10

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07

¶11

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶12

ESA-21-2026 (O&M)

¶13

Appeal was dismissed by this Court on 28.11.1994. The execution filed on the strength of the said decree which remained to be adjourned sine die, was restored in 1994.

¶14

Thereafter, one Saudagar Singh, instituted a suit for specific performance qua the same property against Darshan Singh, in which the legal representatives of Arjan Singh were proceeded against ex parte . The said suit was decreed ex parte on 11.12.1997, holding that the legal representatives of Arjan Singh had no right to enforce the sale deed against Darshan Singh on the basis of the decree dated 12.11.1990. On the strength of this ex parte decree, the execution preferred by Arjan Singh's legal representatives was dismissed on 05.03.1999.

¶15

Against the aforesaid ex-parte decree, the Civil Revision CR No.4462 of 2006 titled “Jai Singh Vs Labh Kaur and Ors.” preferred by the legal representatives of respondent No.1-decree holder herein was allowed by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2009, and the ex parte decree dated 11.12.1997 passed in favour of Saudagar Singh was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision on merits. On 14.10.2010, the suit instituted by Saudagar Singh came to be dismissed. The appeal preferred by the legal representatives of Saudagar Singh against the said dismissal was also declined vide decision dated 07.02.2011.

¶16

The fresh execution application, Execution No.40A, came to be filed by respondent No.1-decree holder on 10.05.2011. Objections thereto were preferred on 27.04.2015 by Gurmeet Kaur, appellant herein, a third party to the decree and to the execution proceedings, claimed to be bona fide purchaser of the suit property; questioning the maintainability of the execution application on the ground of limitation. The said objections were

¶17

allowed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 29.08.2016 SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

ESA-21-2026 (O&M)

¶19

holding that limitation began to run from 12.11.1990, the date of the decree and that the application filed on 10.05.2011 was beyond the twelve-year period prescribed for execution of a decree; the execution application was, accordingly, dismissed. Against the said order, respondent No.1-decree holder preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, in which the appellant was impleaded as a party vide order dated 18.03.2025.

¶20

In appeal, the learned First Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 12.02.2026, reversed this finding holding that the execution application filed on 10.05.2011 to be within limitation and the matter was remanded to the Executing Court for adjudication of the objections on merits. Hence, the present appeal.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book and records, in the humble opinion of this Court, no infirmity can be found in the view taken by the learned First Appellate Court. A perusal of the record shows that the decree dated 12.11.1990 remained under stay from the filing of the first appeal till its dismissal on 27.08.1993. Thereafter, respondent No.1-decree holder's right to execute the said decree stood extinguished by the ex parte decree dated 11.12.1997, obtained in favour of Saudagar Singh, a position that continued until the said ex parte decree was itself set aside in CR No.4462 of 2006 on 21.08.2009, and finally until Saudagar Singh's suit was dismissed on merits on 14.10.2010, a finding affirmed on 07.02.2011. Excluding these periods during which the decree remained under stay or unenforceable, the execution application filed on 10.05.2011 was rightly held to be within limitation.

¶22

Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed. The learned Executing Court shall proceed to adjudicate the objections SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

ESA-21-2026 (O&M)

¶24

preferred by the appellant herein on merits, uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove touching the question of limitation alone.

¶25

Considering that the decree in the present case was passed as far back as 1990, and over 35 years have since elapsed, the learned Executing Court is requested to expedite the proceedings and conclude the same within six months of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶26

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶27

27.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE

¶28

Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether Reportable? Yes/No

¶29

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurmeet Kaur Since Deceased through Her Lr v. Sukhdev Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmeet Kaur Since Deceased through Her Lr v. Sukhdev Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punita Devi and Ors. Vs Union of India

Gulab Singh Vs Partner/Manager, and Another

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Ram Asra(Deceased) Ex. Ga and Anr.

Priya Vs Amandeep

Kirana Rani Vs Inderjeet Singh

Rajni Vs Gaurav