Om Parkash vs Sube Ram Etc on 2 July, 2009

C.R.No.2915 of 2009 (O&M)                                 1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                      C.R.No.2915 of 2009 (O&M)
                                      Date of Decision : 02.07.2009

Om Parkash                                         ...Petitioner

                         Versus

Sube Ram etc.                                      ...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Present:     Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

C.M.No.14937-CII of 2009

The application is allowed and Annexures P-5 to P-7 are

taken on record.

C.R.No.2915 of 2009

Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the

learned District Judge, Faridabad, on 20.11.2008 whereby the appeal

against the order passed by the Executive Court on 27.9.2007 was

dismissed.

A decree for specific performance of an agreement dated

28.4.1997 was passed by the Civil Court on 21.2.2002 in favour of Sube

Ram and against Ishwar Singh. The plaintiff was granted one month time

to deposit the balance amount. The application was filed by decree-

holder for extension of time for depositing balance of Rs.38,000/-. The

said application was allowed. The amount deposited by the decree-holder

was withdrawn by the judgment debtor as well.
C.R.No.2915 of 2009 (O&M) 2

The petitioner has purchased the land from judgment debtor

Ishwar Singh vide sale deed dated 17.5.2005. The objection filed by the

petitioner are that having purchased land from Ishwar Singh, he is a bona

fide purchaser and the sale effected by Ishwar Singh cannot be interferred

with in execution of the decree passed by the learned trial Court.

Both the Courts below are found that the petitioner has

purchased the property during the pendency of the execution petition and,

thus, such sale is subject to doctrine of lis-pendens. The doctrine of lis-

pendens is absolute and the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the

plea of bona fide purchaser, since the sale was during the pendency of the

execution petition.

In view thereof, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in

the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in the

present revision petition.

Dismissed.

02.07.2009                                    (HEMANT GUPTA)
Vimal                                             JUDGE