2023 Supreme(P&H) 3131
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Arun Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Atam Parkash & Anr. – Respondents
CR NO. 7739 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 15-02-2023
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate; For the Petitioner/DH.
Mr. Vinod Kataria, Advocate for Respondent no.2/Objector.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 21, Rules 99, 101, and 102 - Execution of sale deed - Petitioner sought to set aside the order allowing third-party objections concerning the execution of a concluded sale agreement. The court emphasized that a person cannot simultaneously file a separate suit and a resistance application under Order 21, Rule 99, to minimize conflicting decrees. The existence of an earlier order affirming the lack of interest of respondent no. 2 further invalidated her objections. (Paras 8, 19, 25, 29, and 33)
(B) Legal principle - Execution of a decree for possession must be prioritized, with frivolous objections that delay this process being discouraged to uphold judicial efficiency. (Paras 30 and 32)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner entered into an agreement to sell property but faced resistance from respondent no. 2, who claimed rights under a subsequent agreement. However, earlier court rulings established respondent no. 2's lack of interest in the property. The petitioner filed for executing the decree upon which the respondent filed objections that were ultimately deemed frivolous.
Findings of Court:
The order allowing the objections was set aside, affirming that the earlier determination of respondent no. 2’s lack of interest remained binding, and their simultaneous pursuit of different remedies could not be entertained as they risked conflicting judicial decisions.
Issues: Whether respondent no. 2 could validly challenge execution through objections after her rights had been previously adjudicated, and if the court could allow simultaneous proceedings regarding the same property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the objections were filed after the prior ruling which dismissed respondent no. 2's claim, they could not subsequently be entertained in execution proceedings, and simultaneous proceedings were contrary to legislative intent in order to avoid conflict.
Result: Revision Petition allowed; impugned order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. chronological facts of property sale (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural background leading to objections (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. counterarguments on good faith and representation (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. legal provisions and interpretation (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. limitations on parallel proceedings (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. frivolous objections must not delay execution (Para 26 , 29) |
| 7. conclusion on revision petition outcome (Para 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present revision petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order dated 3.10.2017 passed by the ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hoshiarpur in execution proceedings whereby respondent no.2/ third party/ Objector, has been permitted to file Objections.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy at hand, it is necessary to consider the brief chronological sequence of events, which is as follows:
03.11.2008 - The Petitioner/ Decree Holder entered into an agreement to sell with respondent no. 1/ Judgment Debtor regarding land measuring 10 marlas bearing khasra no. 35//7 situated in the area of Village Kotla Gonspur, Hadbast No.369, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur along-with 4 rooms, Kitchen, Lobby, Washroom, Bathroom (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'), for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. At the time of execution of agreement, Rs 1,50,000 was given as earnest money. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.04.2009. It is the petitioner's case that the respondent no.1 did not carry out the terms and conditions of the agreement.
17.12.2009 - In the meantime, unknown to the petitioner, Respondent no.1 allegedly entered into another agreement dated 17.12.2009 (Annexure P-2) with respondent no 2, in respect of the same suit property, which already stood sold to the petitioner by respondent No. 1 vide aforementioned Agreement to Sell dated 3.11.2008.
02.08.2010 - As respondent No. 1 failed to execute the Agreement to Sell dated 3.11.2008, the Petitioner filled civil suit (Annexure P-1) seeking specific performance of the contract dated 3.11.2008.
01.02.2012 - In the said suit, the Respondent no. 1 was proceeded Ex-Parte vide order dated 1.2.2012.
1.2.2012 - On the basis of above-said agreement dated 17.12.2009, Respondent no. 2 moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleading her as defendant in the above said Civil Suit Annexure P-1, filed by the petitioner. In her application, respondent No. 2 termed the agreement in favour of the petitioner as a forged and fabricated document.
17.05.2013 - Vide order dated 17.5.2013 Annexure P-4, ld. Additional Civil Judge allowed the application filed by respondent no. 2 on the ground that she has agreement to sale dated 17.12.2009 in her favour and thus, can associate in the proceedings.
2013 - Against the above said order dated 17.5.2013, the Petitioner filed Civil Revision no. 4899 of 2013 before this Court.
02.02.2015 - Vide order dated 2.2.2015 (Annexure P-5), this Court set aside the order dated 17.5.2013 (P-4) and allowed the revision petition by holding that the applicant/respondent no. 2 is not the necessary party to the suit. Vide said order, this Court held that respondent No. 2 has no right, title or interest in the suit property and she can file separate suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement of 2009. Thus, while allowing the revision, her application was dismissed.
25.09.2015 - Thereafter, vide judgment and decree dated 25.9.2015 (Annexure P-6), the ld. Civil Judge (JD) Hoshiarpur decreed the suit of the petitioner for execution of the sale deed and also to hand over the possession.
Nil - Accordingly, Petitioner/ DH filed execution application under Order 21, Rule 11 CPC for execution of the above-said judgment and decree dated 25.9.2015.
19.12.2016 - In the meantime, the respondent no. 2/ Objector filed Suit (Annexure P-9) for Specific Performance of the Agreement dated 17.12.2009, wherein the petitioner/ DH has also been impleaded as defendant no. 2.
17.01.2017 - That despite the fac
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
