IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:06.02.2026 KAPIL GARG ......Appellant Vs HARDEV SINGH AND ORS. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Dr. Ram Kumar Singla, Advocate with Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate Mr. Parith Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

[1]. By way of present Execution Second Appeal, challenge has been laid to the orders dated 21.11.2025 and 22.12.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri and learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, respectively whereby the 3^rd party objections preferred at the instance of appellant were dismissed followed by issuance of warrants of sale of the subject property by the learned Executing Court vide its order dated 14.01.2026.

[2]. Briefly stating, respondent No.1 being plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against respondent No.2 and the same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri. Para No.21 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “21. In view of the findings of this Court in issues No.1 to 4, the plaintiff has been held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the defendant, along-with interest. However, in the opinion of this Court, the interest claimed by the plaintiff upon the said amount, is exorbitant. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for the recovery of Rs.5 lakhs from the defendant, along-with interest @ 9% per annum starting from 31.12.2017 (date of execution of Pronote and Receipt), till the passing of this Judgment today and future interest @ 6% per annum, till the payment of the entire due amount by the defendant to the plaintiff.”

[3]. Based thereupon, respondent No.1 filed execution application, wherein the appellant claiming himself to be a 3^rd party filed objections while stating that the subject property measuring 3 Biswas, Khata No.100/153, situated at Patti Khalil was transferred by the judgment-debtor/respondent No.2 in favour of his two sons namely Ravinder Kumar and Puneet Kumar. Further, Ravinder Kumar entered into an agreement with the appellant/objector for construction of a portion of the said land against expenditure of Rs.10 lakhs on the ground that if, Ravinder Kumar fails to return the said amount, the objector would become owner of the said land. It was submitted in the objection petition that on account of Ravinder Kumar having failed to return the aforesaid amount, the appellant/objector became owner to the extent of half share of the aforementioned land. The objections were opposed at the instance of decree-holder/respondent No.1.

[4]. The learned Executing Court vide order dated 21.11.2025 dismissed the objections. Aggrieved thereof, the First Appeal was filed, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur-cum-First Appellate Court.

[5]. In consequence thereof, the learned Executing Court vide order dated

14.01.2026 issued warrants of sale of the subject property.

[6]. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.

[7]. The plea raised on behalf of the appellant/objector is that he derived his interest in the said property from one of the sons of the judgment-debtor namely Ravinder Kumar. It has been submitted that Ravinder Kumar and Puneet Kumar, sons of respondent No.2/ judgment-debtor were given the subject property in equal shares by respondent No.2/judgment-debtor in the year 2011 by virtue of family settlement. However, the revenue record as it presently stand, reflects only respondent No.2 being owner of the subject property. No entry with respect to the transfer of rights in favour of two sons of respondent No.2/judgment-debtor was even recorded ever.

[8]. Furthermore, in the suit for recovery filed at the instance of respondent No.1, in terms of or