Back
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
| 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
AI
A third party claiming under a judgment debtor cannot file an application under Order XXI Rule 97; they must file under Rule 99 instead.
A subsequent purchaser cannot assert rights against a prior decree holder, as established by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
A purchaser of property during the pendency of a suit has no right to resist or obstruct the execution of a decree, as per Order XXI Rule 102 and the doctrine of lis pendens.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a bonafide purchaser, not being the decree holder and not having been dispossessed of the property, is not entitled to raise objections under ....
The reviewing court had jurisdiction to review the order, and the Petitioner, as a third party being a transferee during the pendency of the civil suit, cannot claim better rights than the defendants....
Objection to execution of decree – Appellant who is a bonafide purchaser of property and not decree holder, cannot take shelter of Rule 97 of CPC to raise objections against execution of decree passe....
Bonafide purchasers without notice of an original agreement can challenge a decree in a separate suit, as the Execution Court cannot adjudicate on the decree's collusiveness.
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
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
