CR No. 682 of 2021

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

257

*****

CR No. 682 of 2021

Date of Decision : 21.12.2022

Tejinder Pal Singh

..... Petitioner

versus

Krishna Devi and others

..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present:

Mr. Priyanshu Kamra, Advocate, for the petitioner

Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, for the respondents

---

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J. (ORAL):

1.

This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.9.2019

(Annexure P-7) passed by the Executing Court.

2.

The facts of the case in brief are, a suit for mandatory and

permanent injunction was partly decreed vide order dated 5.2.2013 (Annexure

P-1). A preliminary decree of separate possession of the plaintiffs to the extent

of 1/4^th share each by way of partition of the suit property was passed in favour

of the plaintiffs; and defendants were restrained from alienating any specific

portion of the suit property more than their share until and unless the suit

property was partitioned by metes and bounds. Subsequently, Local

Commissioner was appointed who submitted his report dated 27.5.2016

(Annexure P-3) to the effect that the suit property was a three storied building

which could not be partitioned in four portions by metes and bounds as per the

preliminary decree passed. It was, therefore, recommended that the property be

sold to one of the owners by inter-se bidding amongst the co-owners by fixing a

reserve price of the property as per the valuation determined by an approved

Valuer. In terms thereof, the Executing Court proceeded with the matter and

ASHWANI KUMAR

2022.12.22 18:09

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No. 682 of 2021

-2-

invited inter-se bids from the co-sharers so that the property could be sold and

proceeds apportioned amongst the co-sharers. The petitioner/defendant no.1

raised a bid of Rs.1.85 crore that was acceptable to the parties. He was

accordingly directed by the Executing Court to deposit Rs.20 lakhs on or before

16.10.2019, failing which the property was to be sold to defendant no.2

(respondent no.3 herein) by the impugned order dated 24.9.2019.

3.

Learned counsel for respondent no.3 contends that the bidding

process was resorted to by the Executing Court with the consent of all the

parties concerned and the bid raised by the petitioner/defendant no.1 was

acceptable to all of them. It was only thereupon that the impugned order was

passed accepting the bid directing the petitioner/defendant no. 1 to deposit the

initial amount.

4.

It is a case where the property was found to be indivisible as per

report of the Local Commissioner, and his recommendation to auction the

property inter-se the co-sharers was accepted. Accordingly, the Executing Court

proceeded to auction the property, accepted the bid made by the petitioner/

defendant no.1 and passed the impugned order directing him to deposit the

initial amount. There is nothing illegal or irregular about it, nor can the

petitioner himself be allowed to challenge the order after acceptance of his bid.

5.

In view thereof, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned

order passed by the Executing Court.

6.

The petition stands dismissed.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)

JUDGE

21.12.2022

Ashwani

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No

ASHWANI KUMAR

2022.12.22 18:09

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document