C.R. No. 1863 of 2008 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 1863 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 10.9.2009
Joginder Singh
.......... Petitioner
Versus
Puran Chand & another
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Marigank Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
This civil revision is directed against the order dated 2.2.2008,
passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge ( Sr. Divn.), Jalalabad vide which
the objections filed by the petitioner to execution of decree have been
summarily dismissed.
The decree-holder filed a suit for specific performance of an
agreement to sell, said to have been executed by Balbir Kaur widow of Sh.
Partap Singh son of Bagha Singh. In the agreement property (shop ) No.
609/1 measuring 8’x16′ situated in Abadi Gali Machhi Ram Halwai Wali,
Jalalabad, was agreed to be sold.
C.R. No. 1863 of 2008 2
In the execution application, the petitioner herein filed
objections claiming himself to be owner in possession of the shop in dispute
by asserting therein that Smt. Balbir Kaur had no right or interest in the
shop in dispute, as her husband Partap Singh during his life time had sold
two shops falling to his share. The objections were contested on the plea
that, it was merely an attempt to delay the execution proceedings.
The learned Executing Court summarily rejected the objections
filed by the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
impugned order cannot be sustained. Sh. Bagha Singh owned six shops,
which were inherited by his three sons namely Joginder Singh, Partap Singh
and Mohinder Singh in equal share.
It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that, prima facie Balbir Kaur had no right in the property as Partap Singh
during his life time had sold two shops. These facts were disputed. Once it
is clear that the petitioner was claiming his right as third party by raising
objections, the learned executing Court was not right in rejecting the
objections summarily. The objections were to be treated as a suit. The issues
were required to be framed, and the parties were to be permitted to lead
evidence in support of their claims.
The revision is accordingly allowed, the impugned order is set
aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Executing Court to dispose
of the objections after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead
evidence in support of their respective stands.
C.R. No. 1863 of 2008 3
The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before
the learned Executing Court on 15.10.2009.
10.9.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE