IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-5756-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :- 26.08.2025 Parveen Rani ....Petitioner VERSUS Sanjeev Kumar ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Navkesh Singh Goraya, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 05.07.2025, passed in Execution No. 861 of 2014 titled “Sanjeev Kumar v. Ashu Bala and another”, pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the objections filed by Judgment Debtor No.2 (petitioner herein) were dismissed.

Brief Facts

2. The facts, in brief, are that Sanjeev Kumar (plaintiff/decree-holder) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.02.2013, executed between plaintiff and defendant No.1 with regard to the suit property. Petitioner-Parveen Rani, was arrayed as defendant No.2, a necessary party on the ground that she was attorney of defendant No.1 and empowered to execute the sale deed of disputed agreement to sell. It was further pleaded that defendant No.1 failed to honour her promise and that defendant No.2 also failed to execute the sale deed despite notice.

3. However, none appeared on behalf of defendants in the civil suit and accordingly they were proceeded against ex-parte vide judgment and decree dated

24.04.2014. Thereafter, an execution petition was filed.

4. In the said execution petition, petitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 filed objections, whereby she has stated that an ex parte decree dated 24.04.2014 was passed against her and defendant No.1, without due service of summons. She claims that she came to know about the ex parte order only in 2022, when the execution application was filed and that decree-holder/plaintiff had obtained an ex parte decree behind their back. The petitioner/judgment-debtor alleges that summons were manipulated and incomplete address was deliberately mentioned to procure an ex parte order. She has already filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree, which is still pending. It is further contended that the agreement to sell dated 16.02.2013 in favour of Sanjeev Kumar is false and frivolous. She and her family are residing in the suit property for last nine years, electricity connection, Aadhaar cards and other documents show her possession. Her husband Darshan Kumar is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under a separate full and final agreement to sell executed by defendant No.1, besides a General Power of Attorney dated 25.10.2013. Defendant No.1 mortgaged the property with Cholamandalam Finance for ₹7 lakhs and Darshan Kumar has been paying instalments since 2014. Valuable ownership and possession rights have accrued in favour of petitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 and her family and any eviction would cause irreparable loss. On these grounds, petitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 sought dismissal of execution.

5. The decree-holder opposed the objections contending that the objections are not maintainable. Judgment-debtor No.2 was aware of the proceedings but willfully absented herself. The alleged subsequent agreement to sell in favour of Darshan Kumar is fraudulent and afterthought to defeat plaintiff’s lawful rights. Plaintiff’s agreement dated 16.02.2013 is valid and genuine; decree is final and binding.

Findings of Executing Court

6. The Executing Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the objections with the observations that judgment-debtor No.2 herself admits that her alleged agreement to sell in favour of her husband is subsequent to the plaintiff’s agreement dated 16 February 2013. It is settled law that if two agreements to sell are executed for the same property, the prior agreement prevails, while subsequent agreements cannot override the earlier one. The decree dated 24.04.2014 has attained finality and there is no stay order from any appellate court. The Executing Court cannot go behind the