118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:20.02.2026 JOGINDER SINGH ...Petitioner Vs.

BHAGTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition is being filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Executing Court, Karnal in EXE-04-2022. Vide the said order, the learned Executing Court disposed of the application for reframing of issues by modifying its earlier order dated 01.09.2025 and proceeded to reframe the issues in a manner that is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled provisions of law. The learned Court failed to appreciate the factual matrix of the case in its true and proper perspective, resulting in grave prejudice to the petitioner.

1. Whether the alleged agreement to sell dated 13.09.1990 was legally and validly execute by Sadhu Ram in favour of Joginder Singh ? OPO

2. If the answer is in affirmative, whether the objector is entitled for specific performance of the agreement to sell in question ? OPO

3. Whether the objector has no right, title or interest in the suit property ? OPR.

2. While the execution petition was pending for leading evidence on behalf of the petitioner/objector, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 moved an application for reframing of issues. The said application was duly contested by the petitioner/objector by filing a detailed reply opposing the proposed modification. However, vide the impugned order, the learned Executing Court allowed the said application and proceeded to modify/reframe the issues as under:–

1. Whether the objector, Joginder Singh, is in possession of the suit land, and if so, in what capacity and under what right or title ? OPO.

2. Whether the alleged agreement to sell dated 13.09.1990 between Sadh Ram and Joginder Singh is genuine and validly executed, and whether it confers any enforceable right upon the objector to resist delivery of possession ?

OPO.

3. Whether the objector has no right, title or interest in the suit property ? OPR.

4. Relief.

3. The impugned order has been assailed, inter alia, on the ground that the same is in clear violation of the provisions of Section 47 CPC. It is contended that the Executing Court is statutorily obligated to determine and adjudicate upon all questions arising between the parties relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree, including issues concerning delivery of possession of the property in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Arun Kumar vs. Atam Parkash and another, 2023 (4) RCR (Civil) 220, has categorically held that the Executing Court is duty-bound to adjudicate all issues arising between the parties pertaining to title or interest in the property while dealing with objections in execution proceedings.

4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully.

5. Learned Executing Court in para No. 16 and 17 has held as under:

16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court reiterates its earlier position that, unless the validity and effect of the disputed agreement to sell dated 13.09.1990, which constitutes the foundation of Joginder Singh’s claim to possession, are duly determined, the present execution proceedings cannot be brought to their logical conclusion.

17. Accordingly, the earlier issues framed on 01.09.2025 are modified and re-framed as follows:”

6. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, in the objection petition, the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell executed between the predecessor-in-interest of the decree- holders and the objector ought also to have been considered and granted by the Executing Court.In support of the said