CR-2377-2020

--1--

106

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-2377-2020

Decided on:-15.12.2022

Palwinder Singh

...Petitioner.

vs.

Sandeep Kaur

....Respondent.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:

Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been made

to an order dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Executing

Court, whereby the execution application filed at the instance of petitioner-

plaintiff (decree-holder) was dismissed.

2.

Based on an agreement to sell dated 12.07.2012, pertaining to

the suit property, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of

specific performance. The said suit was filed on 31.05.2013 and was

decreed on 17.04.2018, followed by filing of an exection application by the

petitioner-plaintiff on 08.06.2018. While execution proceedings were going

on, the Sub-Registrar of the concerned area submitted his report before the

Executing Court to the effect that the land in question already stood

transferred in favour of one Ranjit Kaur wife of Malkeet Singh, vide sale

deed dated 20.12.2012, executed at the instance of respondent-judgment

debtor. Based on the said report dated 26.11.2019, the Executing Court vide

order dated 21.01.2020, dismissed the execution application by recording

SONIKA

2022.12.21 13:14

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CR-2377-2020

--2--

that the same was rendered infructuous. It is the aforesaid order dated

21.01.2020, which has been impugned herein by way of present revision

petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale of suit

property after execution of the agreement to sell dated 12.07.2012 by

respondent/judgment debtor in favour of petitioner/plaintiff (decree-holder)

would not even bind or affect the rights of the petitioner under the decree

passed in his favour. He further submits that the learned Executing Court

committed an error of law while dismissing the execution application,

merely, on the ground that the property in question already stood sold prior

to filing of the suit in favour of a third party vide sale deed dated

20.12.2012.

4.

Notice of motion in the present revision petition was issued

vide order dated 19.09.2022.

Though, office report shows that dasti notice issued to

respondent not received back served or otherwise, however, the dasti

summons along with service report dated 13.12.2022 have been produced in

the Court today by learned counsel for the petitioner, which are taken on

record, to record that the respondent stands served. However, no one

appears on her behalf.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as gone

through the record, I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of

the petitioner.

6.

Once, by virtue of judgment and decree dated 17.04.2018, it

was proved on record that the agreement to sell dated 12.07.2012 was

validly executed between the petitioner and respondent as regards the

SONIKA

2022.12.21 13:14

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CR-2377-2020

--3--

property in question, any subsequent alienation/sale deed of the same at the

instance of respondent was always governed and regulated by the rights

confered upon the petitioner-plaintiff under the agreement to sell dated

12.07.2012 as regards its enforcement as per law. The Executing Court

failed to appreciate the fact that strictly speaking principles of lis pendens as

provided under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, may not

even apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent

having sold the suit property in favour of third party even prior to filing of

the suit. In fact, the respondent/defendant having entered into an agreement

to sell dated 12.07.2012 with the petitioner, h