IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:- 19.02.2026 Pronounced on: 27.02.2026 Uploaded on: 27.02.2026 SUKHWINDER KAUR ...Petitioner Versus GULSHAN RAI KAURA AND OTHER ...Respondents ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Shalini Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Narinder Kumar Vadehra, Advocates for respondent No.1/Caveator (through Video Conferencing).

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present revision petition was initially assigned to a Coordinate Bench; however, as the said Bench was not holding court, the matter stood adjourned on several occasions. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petition be taken up for hearing on merits at the earliest, contending that the learned Executing Court is actively proceeding with the execution of the decree and that, in the event of its execution, the revision petition would be rendered infructuous. The petition is being contested by the respondents, who have entered appearance on caveat.

2. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 16.01.2026, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, in Case No. EXE-526-2017. By the said order, the objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed summarily, without even framing the necessary issues, despite the fact that the objections raised are, on a prima facie basis, triable in nature.

3. Briefly stated, the predecessor-in-interest of the decree-holders filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated ₹

28.12.1974 in respect of the suit land for a total consideration of 50,000/-. The suit was initially decreed in the alternative vide judgment and decree ₹

dated 11.09.1980, granting recovery of 20,000/-, while the relief of specific performance was declined. On appeal, the suit was decreed for specific performance. A Regular Second Appeal filed by respondent No.3, Sant Ram, was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.2006, and in the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter was amicably settled. It was recorded that respondent No.1/decree-holder gave up his claim in respect of the land sold to Sant Ram on 11.07.1975, and the remaining dispute was settled with Karam Singh, who agreed to execute the ₹

sale deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff upon receipt of 50,000/- along with interest at 18% per annum. On the basis of the said decree, the decree- holders filed execution proceedings. During the pendency thereof, the petitioner, along with other similarly situated purchasers, filed third-party objections, contending that the decree was collusive and obtained without disclosure of prior transfers of the land. It was pleaded that the suit land had already been sold to various purchasers, including the petitioner, who had constructed houses and were residing there. The petitioner claims title through a chain of registered sale deeds: Karam Singh sold the land to Balvir Kumar vide sale deed dated 01.07.1980; Balvir Kumar sold it to the petitioner’s husband vide registered sale deed dated 17.11.1986 (registered on 25.11.1986); and part of the land was subsequently transferred in favour of the petitioner vide transfer deed dated 11.09.2020. Mutations in respect of all the said transactions have been duly sanctioned. The objection petition was dismissed by the learned Executing Court, primarily on the ground that the petitioner’s sale deed is hit by the principle of lis pendens, as it was executed during the pendency of the original suit. The impugned order is assailed on the grounds that it violates the mandate of Order XXI Rule 101 CPC and that the learned Executing Court failed to adjudicate the objections on merits, including the petitioner’s plea that the decree is collusive and vitiated by fraud, which, according to the petitioner, can be challenged even in collateral proceedings.

4. I have heard lear