Fraud vitiates all, but the question of fraud and the genuineness of the sale deed must be decided by the court of competent jurisdiction based on evidence and proceedings. The High Court has inherent power to set aside a wrong, but the discretion should be exercised considering the pending application under Order 9 Rule 13.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - This revision has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 24.05.2018 passed by the Executing Court by which warrants of possession have been issued against the present petitioner for taking possession of the property, while contending that the warrants of possession dated 24.05.2018 are the outcome of a completely sham, fraudulent and mala fide proceedings initiated before the trial court at the behest of one extenant namely, Charanjit Singh.

2. This case has a chequered history and, therefore to understand the controversy, it would be necessary to highlight a few facts.

3. One Madan Lal Rambani had instituted an eviction application on 03.06.1999 against the tenant Charanjit Singh, inter-alia, on the ground that the demised premises was required for his own personal necessity, stating that he had one son namely, Vikram Rambani, aged 28 years, who was likely to be married and as such the premises would be required for his use and occupation. The said eviction petition was contested by Charanjit Singh, admitting that he had taken premises in dispute on 05.01.1971. During the pendency of the said proceedings before the Rent Controller, Madan Lal and his wife passed away and on this background, the Rent Controller by an order dated 27.02.2006 dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that the requirement of the landlord had ceased to exist. The matter was then challenged before the Appellate Authority, who set aside the order of the Rent Controller, which order was then challenged before this Court in Civil Revision 3465 of 2010 titled Charanjit Singh Versus Vikram Dutt and others. This Court, after hearing both the counsel for the parties, dismissed the revision by order dated 26.04.2011 affirming the eviction order. Execution was filed seeking possession of the premises in dispute, to which a reply was filed by the Objector/tenant. The ex-tenant Charanjit Singh filed objections, in which he claimed that one Pardeep Kumar claiming himself to be the co-owner of the property had filed a separate ejectment petition titled "Pardeep Kumar versus Charanjit Singh" and had obtained an order of ejectment from the court of Ms. Sherryl Sohi, Rent Controller, Amritsar, and in those execution proceedings, he had handed over the vacant possession of the shop to said Pardeep Kumar. A reply was filed by the petitioner to the objection taken by Charanjit Singh stating that Pardeep Kumar was neither owner nor had any right, title or interest in the demised shop and this was nothing but a clever maneuver not to hand over possession of the shop to the decree holder. The Executing Court dismissed the execution petition on the ground that the same has been rendered infructuous, as the possession has been handed over to some other person on the basis of a decree of the court of Ms. Sherryl Sohi, Rent Controller, Amritsar. This order was challenged before this Court by way of Civil Revision No. 8067 of 2014 titled Madan Lal Rambani (since deceased) through his L.Rs Versus Charanjit Singh on the ground that a devious method has been adopted by the respondents to deprive the petitioner of the fruits of the litigation in a petition that has been filed on 03.06.1999. Accordingly, the order of the Executing Court dismissing the matter as infructuous was set aside by this Court and a direction was issued to the Executing Court to implement the order of eviction as passed by the Appellate Authority on 13.04.2010 and subsequently upheld in Civil Revision No. 3465 of 2010. It is thereafter the petitioner herein was put in possession of the suit property.

4. However, it appears that the travails of the petitioner did not come to an end. The respondent herein, who is one Sarabjit Singh son of Kulwant Singh, apparently filed a suit for partition on the ground that he had purchased the said property by way of registered sale deed from one Pardeep Kumar son of Shambu Nath and on the basis of the said sale deed, had become ow