C.R. No. 1739 of 2009 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

C.R. No. 1739 of 2009

Date of Decision: August 17, 2009

Mrs. Veena Chadha

…..Petitioner

Vs.

Satnam Singh Dua and others

…..Respondents

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

-.-

Present:-

Mr. H.K.Aurora, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the respondents.

-.-

M.M.S. BEDI, J.

Mrs. Veena Chadha- petitioner has preferred this revision

petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order

dated February 27, 2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar,

dismissing the objection petition of the petitioner for staying the execution

for delivering of physical possession of shops in possession of the petitioner

except by due course of law.

C.R. No. 1739 of 2009 [2]

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff- respondent

No.1 Satnam Singh Dua filed a suit for possession by way of specific

performance of agreement to sell dated October 19, 1993, executed by

defendant No.1 (respondent No.2) in his favour for House No. 56/6 situated

in Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar with an alternative prayer for recovery of

Rs.20000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till its realization. The

petitioner alongwith her husband- respondent No.3 was also impleaded as

defendant Nos.2 and 3. In the said suit, respondent No.1- plaintiff had

alleged that defendant No.2 was his tenant and that the petitioner- defendant

No.3 is the wife of defendant No.2. Since 1993, plaintiff- respondent No.1

Satnam Singh had been visiting defendants No.2 and 3 to collect rent of his

property and the execution of agreement of sale was in the knowledge of

defendant No.2 and his wife- petitioner. As the petitioner (defendant No.3)

and defendant No.2 were claiming that they had purchased the property,

they were impleaded being subsequent purchasers. The suit of the plaintiff-

respondent No.1 for specific performance was decreed. The relevant

portion of the decree is as follows:-

“It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff stands

decreed ex-parte in favour of the plaintiff and

against the defendant No.1 for a recovery of

Rs.10000/- with costs and with interest at the rate

of 12% PA w.e.f. 19.10.93 till the realization of

decretal amount. Suit or the plaintiff against

defendants No.2 and 3 stands dismissed.”

C.R. No. 1739 of 2009 [3]

A perusal of the decree clearly indicates that the suit for

specific performance was decreed ex-parte in favour of plaintiff-respondent

No.1 and against defendant No.1- Ramesh Kumar but the suit of plaintiff-

respondent No.1 was dismissed qua the petitioner and her husband-

respondent No.3 (defendants No.2 and 3). Plaintiff filed an appeal against

the ex-parte decree against Ramesh Kumar by impleading the petitioner and

her husband as respondents. The lower Appellate Court slightly modified

the decree and passed the following decree:-

“22.

As a sequel to my above discussion, the

findings of the trial Court on issue No.2 are set

aside the appeal is accepted with costs and the

judgment of the trial Court set aside and thereby

suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for

specific performance of the agreement to sell

dated 19.10.1993 with the direction that the

defendant No.1 will execute the sale deed in

favour of the plaintiff within two months failing

which the plaintiff shall be at liberty to get the sale

deed executed through the court on deposit of the

balance sale consideration within a period of one

month. Decree be drawn accordingly.”

It is specifically held by two Courts that defendant No.1

Ramesh Kumar would execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a

peri