122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:20.02.2026 GURCHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS ...Petitioners Vs.

CAHRANJIT SINGH ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Jaswinder Singh Grewal, Advocate for the petitioners.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to set aside the orders dated 18.08.2023, 06.10.2023, and 28.01.2026 passed by the learned Executing Court in Execution Petition No. EXE-160-2021, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner under Section

60 CPC have been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell against the present petitioners, which was duly contested by them by filing a written statement and leading evidence in support of their defence. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Trial Court held that the respondent/plaintiff had failed to prove his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Consequently, the relief of specific performance was declined; however, in the alternative, a decree for refund of the earnest money was granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2019. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the respondent preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated

09.01.2020, thereby affirming the findings of the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the respondent/decree-holder initiated execution proceedings by filing Execution Petition No. EXE-160-2021. Upon notice, the petitioners appeared before the learned Executing Court and filed detailed objections challenging the maintainability and mode of execution. After contest, the said objections were dismissed vide order dated 18.08.2023 and subsequently reaffirmed vide order dated 06.10.2023. Thereafter, when the residential property of the petitioners was sought to be attached, the petitioners/objectors filed specific objections under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, asserting that the attached property constitutes their sole residential house and, therefore, is exempt from attachment and sale in execution of the decree. It was specifically pleaded that the property falls within the protective ambit of Section 60 CPC and could not legally be proceeded against. However, the learned Executing Court dismissed the said objections without duly considering the mandatory requirement of issuance and service of notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC, and without adverting to or properly appreciating the statutory protection envisaged under Section 60 CPC. The impugned orders, thus, suffer from non-application of mind and material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction.

3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the file carefully.

4. The property sought to be put to sale in the execution proceedings is the very same property which constituted the subject matter of the agreement to sell and was agreed to be sold by the petitioners to the decree- holder. However, the suit for specific performance instituted by the decree-

holder did not succeed, as he failed to prove his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, an essential requirement for the grant of such relief. Consequently, the learned Trial Court declined the relief of specific performance and instead granted only the alternative relief of recovery of the earnest money along with interest. Thus, the decree passed is purely a money decree, notwithstanding that the property now sought to be sold was originally the subject matter of the agreement to sell.

5. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that, while passing the order dated 06.10.2023, the learned Executing Court purportedly sought to safeguard the interests of the objectors. The s