IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-9609-2025

DECIDED ON: 19.12.2025

ARUN KUMAR

.....PETITIONER

VERSUS

KULDEEP KAUR AND ANOTHER

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Mohit Rana, Advocate

for the petitioner.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the third- party objector assailing the order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC were dismissed and warrants of possession were directed to be issued in favour of the decree

holder.

2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Executing Court acted without jurisdiction in dismissing the third-party

objections is wholly misconceived.

3. At the outset, this Court is of the considered view that no notice is required to be issued to the respondents, as the revision petition raises only a short and purely legal question arising from execution proceedings,

and the record placed before this Court is sufficient for effective adjudication.

4. A perusal of the record shows that the decree in question arises out of a suit for specific performance, which stood finally affirmed up to this Court. The decree has attained finality after dismissal of the appeal by the learned District Judge and the Regular Second Appeal by this Court. The execution of a final decree cannot be stalled on repetitive or derivative objections raised by persons claiming through or under the judgment debtor. 5. The argument that the property is ancestral in nature and that the judgment debtor had only a limited right to alienate her share does not advance the petitioner’s case. These very pleas were available to the judgment debtor in the original suit and were consciously rejected by the trial court while decreeing specific performance. The findings on ownership and executability of the agreement to sell have already attained finality. A third-party objector cannot be permitted to re-open concluded issues of title under the garb of execution proceedings.

6. Much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the petitioner on Order 21 Rules 97 to 101 CPC to contend that the objections ought to have been treated as a suit and full-fledged evidence should have been led. This submission is without substance. The said provisions are intended to protect genuine third-party claimants who establish an independent right, title or possession unconnected with the judgment debtor. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly traces his claim from the judgment debtor herself. His claim is neither independent nor adverse to that of the judgment debtor. Consequently, the Executing Court was justified in declining to convert execution proceedings into a parallel trial.

7. The plea that the petitioner is in separate possession on account of distinct electricity connections or alleged demarcation of portions does not confer any independent legal right. Such arrangements, even if existing, are at best internal family arrangements and do not override a lawful decree passed by a competent Civil Court. Possession claimed through the judgment debtor cannot defeat the rights of a decree holder executing a final decree.

8. The contention that the decree holder’s remedy was only to seek partition and not possession is equally untenable. A decree for specific performance, once satisfied by execution of the sale deed, entitles the decree holder to seek consequential possession. The Executing Court is competent to grant possession even if the decree does not expressly mention it, once title has lawfully passed. The petitioner’s attempt to confine execution merely to registration of the sale deed is contrary to settled legal principles governing execution of specific performance decrees.

9. The argument that the petitioner was not a party to the original suit and, therefore, cannot be dispossessed, is also devoid of merit. A person cla