##PAGE1##

CR-1995-2024 Page 1 of 13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

113+201 CR-1995-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 23.12.2025

Nafe Singh

.…Petitioner

Versus

Naresh Kumar

.... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - Mr. Arman Goyal, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Rathee, Advocate

Mr. Vijay Deep Rathee, Advocate

for the respondent.

Mr. Suraj Mandhan, Advocate

for Auction Purchaser.

****

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-22927-CII-2025

Present application under Order 1 Rule 10 has been filed by

the Sandeep Kumar Auction Purchaser of the suit property for impleading

him as respondent No.2 being necessary and proper party.

It is prayed that the present application be allowed and

applicant be impleaded as party respondent No.2 being necessary and

proper party.

Heard.

The present dispute is between judgment debtor and the

decree holder with regard to the identity of the decree holder. In view of

1 of 13

::: Downloaded on - 11-01-2026 14:28:09 :::

CR-1995-2024 Page 2 of 13

the order passed in the main Revision Petition, present application stands

dismissed. The applicant is at liberty to pursue his rights in accordance

with law before the learned Executing Court.

CM-22928-CII-2025

Present application under Section 151 CPC has been filed by

the proposed respondent No.2 seeking modification of order dated

04.04.2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

Heard.

In view of the fact that the application for impleadment

bearing No.CM-22927-CII-2025 filed by the applicant has been dismissed,

present application is also dismissed.

MAIN CASE

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the judgment-

debtor under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the

order dated 22.03.2024 (Annexure P14) passed by the learned Additional

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur in Execution Petition (EXE-34-2018)

whereby on the basis of affidavit filed by the respondent/plaintiff/decree

holder i.e. Naresh Kumar, he/Naresh Kumar and Narender Singh have

been considered to be one and the same person; and it has been directed

by the learned Executing Court to deposit the decretal amount in the bank

amount of said Narender Singh without there being any proof.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that vide the impugned order, the learned Executing Court has allowed

the application filed by the present respondent for amendment in the

2 of 13

::: Downloaded on - 11-01-2026 14:28:09 :::

CR-1995-2024 Page 3 of 13

Award/Decree by granting permission to the respondent to amend the

plaint on the ground that name of the respondent-plaintiff was wrongly

mentioned in the plaint as “Naresh Kumar” instead of “Narender Singh son

of Prithi Singh” due to typographical mistake. It is submitted that the

amendment has been allowed by the learned Executing Court merely on

the basis of an affidavit filed by the respondent. Even no opportunity was

granted to the petitioner to rebut the said assertion of the respondent.

Moreover, it has been wrongly observed by the learned Executing Court

in the impugned order that the petitioner has never objected to the

identity of Naresh Kumar and Narender Singh being one and the same

person. Learned counsel refers to the reply (Annexure P12) filed by the

petitioner to the amendment application (Annexure P11) filed by the

respondent, wherein the petitioner has strongly controverted the fact that

Naresh Kumar and Narender Singh are one and the same person. It is

pointed out that since 2012, the respondent has not disputed rather, has

perpetuated his identity as Naresh Kumar. All proceedings filed by the

respondent against the petitioner have been as ‘Naresh Kumar’. However,

in 2024, the respondent has suddenly claimed to be Narender Singh. It is

contended that even otherwise, the Award is passed in favour of Naresh

Kumar. As such, the decretal amount cannot be released in favour of

Narender Singh. It is accordingly prayed that the present Revision Petition

be allowed, and the impugned order be set aside.

3. Per contra, le