IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 16, 2026 Mejar Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Mohan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present: Mr.Praveen Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Dheeraj Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders dated

29.05.2023 (Annexure P-8) and 21.11.2023 (Annexure P-10) passed by learned Executing Court, whereby, the warrant of attachment of the property was issued and thereupon, application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was filed by the decree holder and objections, at the instance of the petitioners-

JDs, were filed and the same were dismissed.

The facts, as culled out from the paperbook, are as follows:-

That, initially, respondent No.1-Mohan Singh had filed a suit bearing No.175 of 01.10.2009 against the petitioners and respondents No.2 to 5 (who were defendants No.1 to 5), for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.04.2006, for execution of the sale deed, and the land measuring 15 Kanal, as detailed in the decree-sheet, copy whereof is Annexure P-1. After completion of the pleadings, issues were framed and the evidence was led.

On appraisal of the evidence, vide judgment dated 20.04.2015, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1-Mohan Singh was partly decreed and he was held entitled to recover an amount of Rs.15,50,000/- from defendants No.1 to 5. The relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell or permanent injunction was dismissed.

Being aggrieved, both the plaintiff and defendants, in the said suit, had filed the respective appeals and both the appeals were also dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge. However, execution petition was filed and during the pendency of the same, on the basis of an application filed, the warrant of attachment of the land of the JDs was issued.

When notice under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was issued, objections were filed at the instance of the petitioners, who were few of the JDs, thereby, asserting that the decree holder is a clever and shrewd person, who had defrauded the JDs and had executed agreement to sell regarding his 15 Kanal land, situated in Dehlan, with some of the respondents. He had agreed to get the sale deed executed and when the gathering took place in this regard, the decree holder had promised in the panchayat that he will withdraw the pending execution and will return the remaining amount to the JDs with interest. However, neither the decree holder withdrew the execution nor he returned the amount of JDs. The decree holder has wrongly got attached the property of the JDs, which now cannot be put on sale. The decree holder is not entitled to recover any amount from the JDs.

Reply to the aforesaid objections was sought and after hearing counsel for the parties, vide impugned order dated 21.11.2023, the objections of the JDs were dismissed and the property was ordered to be put up on sale.

Being aggrieved, the petitioners/JDs have filed the present revision petition.

Upon notice, respondent No.1 made appearance through counsel.

Counsel for the parties heard.

The factual position as narrated aforesaid is not disputed.

However, during the pendency of the suit, before the trial Court, an agreement was allegedly executed between Mohan Singh and the JDs, wherein, it was agreed that the land, which forms the basis of the civil suit, pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Moonak, was to be sold by respondent No.1-Mohan Singh, in favour of Gurpiar Singh, Manjit Singh, Harpreet Singh, Harbans Singh, Mandeep Singh and Ranjit Singh, to the extent of the shares, as detailed in the agreement, copy whereof is Annexure P-2. Therein, it was also agreed that the registry shall be executed, in their favour, within one month, after the case, pending in the Civil Court, Moonak, is decided. In the light of this agreement, it was asserted that the property, as such, could not be put on sale. An amo