IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

CR-2314-2024 Date of decision : 24.02.2025 Bhajno (now deceased) through her legal representatives and others ... Petitioners Versus Bhupinder Pal Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr.G.S. Punia, Senior Advocate with Mr.P.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.S.K. Chawla, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr.Nitin Verma, Advocate for the caveators- respondents no.1 and 2.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Faridkot in Execution no.EXE-113-2018 vide which the objection filed by the petitioners-

judgment debtors has been dismissed.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell and for permanent injunction was filed by respondents no.1 and 2 against Bhajno in the year 2008 and during the pendency of the said suit, the said Bhajno had died on 21.02.2009 and the brothers of the said Bhajno (petitioner no.1 presently through LRs) were impleaded as legal representatives subject to just exceptions on the basis of a registered Will dated 26.05.1998. It is submitted that the suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 02.07.2018 and the respondents no.1 and 2-plaintiffs were required to offer the balance sale consideration to the legal heirs / LRs of defendant no.1 within a period of two months from the date of the decree but the same was not done and the period of two months elapsed on 02.09.2018. It is further submitted that since the respondents no.1 and 2 had not complied with the decree, thus, the contract/agreement rescinded as per the provision of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is submitted that the petitioners had filed their objection dated 20.04.2019, which have been illegally dismissed by the Executing Court. It is submitted that the order dismissing the objection of the petitioners deserves to be set aside and the objection filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed and since the decree stands rescinded, thus, neither the sale deed deserves to be executed nor the possession of the suit property should be delivered to the respondents no.1 and 2. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prem Jeevan vs. K.S. Venkata Raman and another reported as 2017 AIR (SCW) 623.

3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents no.1 and 2, on the other hand, has submitted that the present revision petition has been filed only to delay the fruits of decree in favour of the respondents no.1 and 2. It is submitted that the trial Court while passing the decree had purposely used the term “legal heirs / legal representatives” of defendant no.1 and the offer was to be made to them within a period of two months. It is argued that prior to any objection filed by the petitioners, the execution application was filed by the respondents no.1 and 2 on 09.08.2018 and in the said proceedings, a caveat was filed by the sons of late Smt.Bhajno, who had stated that they were her legal heirs and had also relied upon the registered Will dated 22.01.2009, which was annexed as Annexure A-1 along with their caveat application (Annexure P-4) filed in the execution proceedings. 4. It is submitted that in the said application, it was specifically stated by the applicants Sukhmander Singh and Chamkaur Singh sons of Bhajno alias Bhajan Kaur that they were the legal heirs of the deceased Bhajan Kaur and they had no objection in case the decree in question was executed by the decree holders after making payment of the remaining sale consideration. It is submitted that as is apparent from the zimni orders, the respondents no. 1 and 2 had mad