C.R. No.825 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.825 of 2008
Date of decision:- 15.4.2009.
Balwant Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Balbir Kaur and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for
Mr. Amandeep Agnihotri, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 5.
Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate
for respondents No.6 to 10 and 12.
JASWANT SINGH J.(Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-
Judgment Debtor for setting aside the order dated 26.11.2007 (Annexure P-
3) passed by learned District Judge, Patiala, whereby the application of the
petitioner for release of his land from attachment, was dismissed.
It is apparent from the record that respondents No.1 to 5-
plaintiffs had filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant and also
respondents No.6 to 12 for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as damages
for injuries caused to one Bhag Singh son of Ajmer Singh resulting into his
death as well as causing injuries to one Gurnam Singh and Labh Singh and
the said suit was decreed on 16.2.2006. It is also not in dispute that during
the pendency of the suit itself land of the petitioner was attached.
It is also not disputed that an application was moved by the
C.R. No.825 of 2008 -2-
petitioner before the learned Appellate Court (since by that time the suit had
been decreed) for release of the attached land on the basis that he was
willing to tender the claimed amount of compensation qua his share. The
said application was dismissed by the learned District Judge vide his
impugned order dated 26.11.2007, hence, the present revision petition was
filed.
This Hon’ble Court vide order dated 5.5.2008 passed the
following order:-
“21 bighas 3 biswas of landed property of the
petitioner has been attached in decree for recovery of
Rs.2 lacs along with interest at the rate of 12% per
annum. The petitioner has filed the present application
to seek permission to satisfy the decree by allowing him
to either mortgage or sell the part of the property
attached. Such a course is permissible under Order 21
Rule 83 CPC. The prayer of the petitioner is that he be
permitted to sell one acre of land so that he can satisfy
the decretal amount which is due against the petitioner
and seven others.
Counsel for the contesting respondents apparently
have no objection to the said prayer of the petitioner.
Permission sought is granted. The prayer is permitted to
sell one acre of land out of the attached property. The
petitioner further prays that he may be permitted to sell
Khasra No.701, 4 bighas 13 biswas. The petitioner after
selling the said khasra number would deposit the decretal
C.R. No.825 of 2008 -3-amount as due on the date of deposit with the Executing
Court.
The revision is adjourned to 25.8.2008.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has, today, stated at the Bar
that in pursuance of order dated 5.5.2008, petitioner Balwant Singh has
deposited a sum of Rs.6,02,000/- on 09.6.2008, which was the due amount
of compensation by that date. However, the same is without prejudice to his
rights to recover the amount from his co-defendants qua their share. He
further submits that the plaintiffs-respondents have not filed any further
appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents No.2 to 5 and
respondents-co-defendants do not dispute this position.
It is also not disputed that brother and co-defendants of the
petitioner Balwant Singh namely Harchand Singh @ Chand and Jaswant
Singh have filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.2.2006
(Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Trial Court in a suit for recovery
wherein vide order dated 1st September, 2001, the land of the petitioner-
Balwant Singh was attached.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, in view of the
aforesaid undisputed development, prays for a direction to the learned
Executing Court/Appellate Court (where the appeal against the judgment
and decree dated 16.2.2006 is pending) to release the remaining attached
land of the petitioner with further liberty to recover the amount of
compensation due from the co-defendants but paid by the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid facts of the present case, the prayer on
behalf of the petitioner is accepted. Learned Appellate Court/District Judge,
C.R. No.825 of 2008 -4-
Patiala is directed to release the remaining attached land of the petitioner at
the earliest. Petitioner shall also be at liberty to recover the amount of
compensation in accordance with law from his co-defendants qua their
liabilities, if any, discharged by the petitioner.
Revision petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid terms.
April 15, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE