277 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2113-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: 06.05.2026 Anand ...Petitioner Versus Dayanand and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Binat Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravinder Rana, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the trial Court, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is Judgment Debtor No.1 and after the passing of the decree by the First Appellate Court, he has purchased a part of the joint land vide sale deed dated 18.01.2023 and has become co-sharer in the property and had thus, filed objections to the effect that the said decree should not be executed against him. It is submitted that the objections have been dismissed vide order dated 13.03.2023 which order is not in accordance with law and deserves to be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1:-

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, has submitted that the decree, which was passed in the present case, was with respect to the suit property which was specifically shown in the site plan by the letters AGBHFE and thus, the question of the same being part of the joint land does not arise. It is further submitted that even as per the case of the petitioner, the said purchase was made after the decree had been passed and during the pendency of the execution proceedings and thus, is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and the petitioner who is a Judgment Debtor has no right to raise the said objection. It is thus, submitted that the impugned order has been rightly passed and deserves to be upheld.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

5. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 had filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent No.2 for possession. A perusal of the judgment dated 28.11.2014 of the trial Court would show that the possession was sought of the suit land which was marked by the letters AGBHFE, which as per the case of respondent No.1-plaintiff was encroached upon by the present petitioner to the extent which was shown by the letters AGFE in the site plan and also by defendant No.2 to the extent shown by letters GBHF in the site plan. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the said land was within lal dora/abadi deh of village Subana, Tehsil and District Jhajjar, Haryana. The said suit was instituted on 22.02.2010 and was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 28.11.2014. Appeal filed by respondent No.1 was allowed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.10.2016 which judgment has been annexed as Annexure P-2 along with the present revision petition and the suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff for possession was decreed with respect to the property which was detailed in paras 1 and 2 of the plaint and was specifically marked by letters AGBHFE and was shown as red colour in the site plan.

6. A perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court would show that it was held that the suit property was ancestral property of plaintiff/respondent No.1 and demarcation report Ex.P1 as well as evidence of the person who had demarcated the property was taken into consideration before accepting the plea of plaintiff to the effect that the petitioner and other defendant had encroached upon the property of the plaintiff. On a pointed query raised by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that no further appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2016 has been filed and it is not disputed before this Court that the said judgment has attained finality.

7. The petitioner apparently in order to create ob