S. No.140 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CR No.452 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:20.01.2026 Iqbal Singh .....Petitioner Vs.

Avtar Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.10.2025 vide which third party objections moved by petitioner – Iqbal Singh have been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the property owned by the petitioner has been wrongly attached and the attachment is illegal, unjust and void. Applicant is owner of the suit property which has been ordered to be attached vide transfer deed dated 24.08.2018 registered with Sub Registrar, Moga executed in his favour by his father. His father had allegedly obtained loan from plaintiff- decree holder on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 23.01.2017. His father transferred the property owned by him through a transfer deed dated 24.08.2018 whereas the suit for recovery of the amount was instituted on 18.01.2020 i.e. after one and a half year of transfer of the property in his favour and as such, the property was not liable to be attached and learned counsel prayed that impugned order be set aside and the property ordered to be attached be ordered to be released from attachment.

3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has cited judgment dated 13.12.2018 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No.1670 of 2014 (O&M) titled “M/s Dharam Pal Mahesh Kumar, Commission Agent Vs. Satpal”, judgment passed by the Delhi High Court reported as 2000(2) RCR (Civil) 45 – Canara Bank Vs. Gurmukh Singh and a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as 2025 INSC 1364- L.K. Prabhu @ L. Krishna Prabhu (died) through LRs Vs. K.T. Mathew @ Thampan Thomas & Ors.

4. However, I do not find any force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the case law cited by him is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. JD- Balwant Singh, who was father of the objector was advanced a loan of Rs.1,72,000/- by the plaintiff on interest on 23.01.2017 against a pronote and receipt executed by him. Thereafter, he transferred the land owned by him in favour of his son/objector vide transfer deed dated 24.08.2018 registered with Sub Registrar, Moga. The plaintiffs- decree holders instituted a suit for recovery of amount on 18.01.2020 and the suit has been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2023. In 1989(2) PLJ 218- Waryam Singh alias Baryam Singh Vs. Rameshwar Dass and others, defendant had taken a loan from the plaintiff and thereafter, he transferred his land in favour of his wife by way of a consent decree. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount which was decreed and objections were filed by his wife that her husband had taken loan on 13.05.1975 and he transferred the land owned by him in her favour on 04.03.1978 & thereafter, the suit was instituted on 24.05.1978 and as such, property had already been transferred in her favour before institution of the suit for recovery of the money and the property owned by her cannot be attached.

However, it was held that simply because property was transferred in favour of wife prior to filing of the suit by the plaintiff- decree holder, it was of no consequence as loan had been taken much earlier in May, 1975 by the defendant- judgment debtor and the objections were dismissed. Judgment in L.K. Prabhu’s case (supra) is not at all applicable to the facts of the case in hand as in that case, amount was due in favour of purchaser and a sale deed was executed on payment of balance sale consideration whereas in the present case, the property has been transferred in favour of son by way of a family settlement/ transfer deed only to avoid the decree that may be passed against the plaintiff/JD. Learned Executing Court has also thus ap