IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-9663-2025

DECIDED ON: 22.12.2025

SHISHA SINGH .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

JASPAL SINGH

.....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor against the execution petition filed by the respondent/decree holder have been dismissed as not maintainable in Execution Petition No. 91 of 2022 titled as “Jaspal Singh versus Shisha Singh”, pending before the

learned Executing Court at Samana.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition, as narrated by the petitioner, are that the petitioner had initially filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondent for restraining him from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land measuring 37 kanals 0 marlas comprised in the revenue estate of Village Dullar, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala. The respondent appeared in the said suit and filed a written

statement along with a counter claim, setting up a plea that he was entitled to the relief of specific performance on the basis of an Agreement to Sell dated

22.06.2001 allegedly executed by the petitioner.

3. It was pleaded by the respondent in the counter claim that the sale deed was initially fixed to be executed on 18.12.2001, which was later extended to 20.05.2002, and since the petitioner failed to execute the sale deed on the fixed date, the respondent became entitled to seek specific performance. Upon leading of evidence by both the parties, the suit filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction was dismissed, whereas the counter claim filed by the respondent for possession by way of specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 22.06.2001 was allowed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samana, vide judgment and decree dated 08.05.2006. The petitioner was directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent after receiving the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period, failing which the respondent was permitted to get the sale deed executed through the Court in accordance with law.

4. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2006, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Regular Second Appeals, which were also dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2011, thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent.

5. Subsequently, the respondent/decree holder filed Execution Petition No. 81 of 2012. During the said execution proceedings, objections were raised by the petitioner/judgment debtor. The execution petition was ultimately dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated

04.08.2016 on the ground that the respondent had failed to deposit the balance sale consideration amount within the time stipulated.

6. It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter the respondent approached this Court by filing Civil Revision No. 6789 of 2016, wherein vide order dated 18.11.2022, certain directions were issued regarding extension of time and registration of the sale deed. After the passing of the said order, the respondent filed a second execution application in the year 2022 seeking execution of the decree dated 08.05.2006.

7. The petitioner/judgment debtor filed objections to the said execution application, inter alia, on the grounds that the second execution petition was not maintainable, being barred by limitation, and that the respondent had deliberately concealed the factum of dismissal of the earlier execution petition vide order dated 04.08.2016. These o