1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:21.01.2026 Amrit Pal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Tarlok Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Abhivadya Sood, Advocate for petitioner.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been preferred by petitioner-judgment debtor, who is aggrieved by impugned order dated 13.10.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala vide which objections under Order XXI Rule 90 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) against auction sale dated 06.08.2025 preferred by petitioner-judgment debtor were dismissed.

2. Gist of brief facts is noted to appreciate controversy raised in present case. Respondent-decree holder had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.08.2018. The suit was contested by petitioner-judgment debtor and same was decreed vide decree dated 12.10.2022 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Patiala. Petitioner- judgment debtor had filed an appeal against judgment and decree dated 12.10.2022 and in said appeal compromise was effected between respondent-decree holder and petitioner-judgment debtor, wherein petitioner-judgment debtor had agreed to refund back earnest money of Rs.17,00,000/- to respondent-decree holder by 15.01.2025 before Lok Adalat. It was agreed that petitioner-judgment debtor shall pay Rs.2,00,000/-

per month on 27^th of every month and first installment was to be paid by him on 27.05.2024. Petitioner-judgment debtor had agreed to pay entire amount by 15.01.2025. Petitioner-judgment debtor agreed to make payment in the account of respondent-decree holder. It was also agreed that in case petitioner-judgment debtor fails to settle the amount, he would be bound to pay entire amount of Rs.18,25,000/- as due on said date. Since petitioner- judgment debtor failed to honor his commitment made before Lok Adalat, respondent-decree holder had filed execution claiming decretal amount of Rs.18,25,000/- along with interest @ 6% till actual realization. Attachment of property was ordered and attached property belonging to petitioner- judgment debtor was put to auction on 06.08.2025 after issuance of warrants of sale. The Court auctioneer conducted auction at the spot. Highest bid of Rs.21,60,000/- made by Smt. Gurpeet Kaur was accepted. Earlier petitioner- objector had raised objections under Order XXXI Rule 66 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which were decided after hearing both the parties and only thereafter warrants of sale were ordered. It is pertinent to note that purchaser-Gurpreet Kaur had deposited entire sale consideration. Petitioner- judgment debtor had filed objections to the sale which was dismissed vide impugned order. Hence, present petition has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner-judgment debtor has challenged the impugned order and asserted that learned Executing Court has wrongly accepted and confirmed the auction bid given by Smt. Gurpreet Kaur. It is asserted that property which is valued at Rs.45,00,000/- was wrongly sold by learned Executing Court only for Rs.21,16,000/- and therefore auction proceedings are liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon valuation report dated 12.08.2025 of Ar. Rajinder Singh, Building Designer Supervisor, wherein property was valued at Rs.45,00,000/-. Land was valued at Rs.33,72,000/- and building was assessed at Rs.11,28,000/-. However, learned Executing Court has rejected the contention raised on behalf of petitioner-judgment debtor on the ground that petitioner-judgment debtor has failed to prove proper valuation to show that attached property was sold for lesser amount.

4. As valuation report was issued by a private person, who was not a certified valuer and was only an approved draftsman, it was concluded by executing Court that in view of nature of report made by an unqualified person, report was not worth placing reliance. The report relied upon by petiti