Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Mohan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gurtek Singh - Respondent
CR No. 3304 of 2023
Decided On : 22-05-2024
Execution - Property Dispute - CPC Section 47, Order 1 Rule 10, Order 21 Rule 54 - The court interpreted the provisions of CPC regarding execution and objections, emphasizing the need for the Executing Court to consider objections and the principle of lis pendens in property disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Executing Court's dismissal of his objections regarding the attachment of property, which was subject to a prior agreement to sell in his favor, while another agreement existed in favor of the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Executing Court failed to consider the petitioner's objections and did not properly evaluate the implications of the prior agreement to sell, which was in effect during the pendency of the respondent's suit.
Issues: Whether the Executing Court properly considered the objections raised by the petitioner regarding the attachment of property and the implications of the prior agreement to sell.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Executing Court must evaluate objections and that the principle of lis pendens protects the rights of parties with prior agreements during ongoing litigation.
Result: The impugned order was set aside and the revision petition was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
CM-9332-CII-2024
1. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased late Sh. Gurtek Singh [respondent no.1] mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application, is allowed, subject to all the just exceptions.
2. The amended memo of parties is taken on record.
3. CM stands disposed of.
MAIN
4. In this revision petition, the petitioner assails the correctness of the Executing Court’s order dated 17.03.2023, while dismissing his objection petition.
5. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
6. Sh. Shiv Kumar and Naranjan Dass were joint owners of the property on the basis of sale deed executed in their favour on 27.01.1995, which was registered on 02.02.1995. They executed the agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner and Sh. Mohan Singh, on 26.12.2003. However, Sh. Shiv Kumar and Sh. Naranjan Dass did not honour the agreement. Hence, the petitioner filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell on 08.12.2006, which was decreed on 20.09.2014. The first appeal filed by Sh. Shiv Kumar and Sh. Naranjan Dass was dismissed on 17.01.2018 and in the execution petition, the Court officially appointed Local Commissioner to get the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner on 04.07.2017.
7. Sh. Shiv Kumar is alleged to have entered into another agreement to sell with respect to the same property in favour of Sh. Gurtek Singh with respect to his share in the property. Again Sh. Shiv Kumar did not honour the agreement, forcing Sh. Gurtek Singh to file a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 03.07.2009. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioner’s application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed. Ultimately, the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell was not granted in favour of Sh. Gurtek Singh and in alternative, relief of earnest money in favour of Sh. Gutek Singh and against Sh. Shiv Kumar was granted.
8. In execution petition, filed by Sh. Gurtek Singh against Sh. Shiv Kumar, the suit property was attached. The petitioner filed objection which has been dismissed by the Executing Court with the following observations:-
No ground is made out that justifies objections of the objector and in view of the order dated 09.07.2018, objections of objector stands dismissed. Let, sale warrants of attached property be issued as per following schedule:”
9. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.
10. In the civil suit filed by Sh. Gurtek Singh, the petitioner was party to the suit. No decree for recovery was passed against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner herein has a prior/preferential right over the property as agreement to sell in his favour is dated 26.12.2003. Moreover, the alleged agreement to sell in favour of the decree holder (respondent) is during the pendency of the suit filed by the petitioner. Hence, the same is governed by
The Executing Court must consider objections raised by parties and the principle of lis pendens in property disputes to ensure fair adjudication.
The court affirmed that unproven claims under an agreement to sell do not override execution proceedings, especially when the claim is time-barred.
The subsequent sale of the property did not affect the rights of the decree-holder, and the executing court must consider the rights of subsequent purchasers under Section 19(b) of the 1963 Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief of possession can be granted without being specifically claimed in a suit for specific performance, as per Section 22(2) of the Spe....
A second execution petition filed after the limitation period is barred, and withdrawal of an earlier execution does not extend the limitation period.
Belated third-party objections claiming joint family property in execution are dismissible without evidence if prior knowledge via family business and attachment is evident, preventing frustration of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
