Civil Revision No.6166 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Misc. Nos.25027-28-CII of 2009 and
Civil Revision No.6166 of 2009
Date of decision:27th October, 2009
Ram Niwas
......Petitioner
Versus
Anil Kumar and others
......Respondents
Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Rajive Bhalla, J.(Oral)
Civil Misc. No. 25027-CII of 2009
Allowed as prayed for.
Civil Misc. No. 25028-CII of 2009
Allowed as prayed for.
Annexures-P/1 and P/2 are taken on record.
Civil Revision No. 6166 of 2009
The petitioner challenges an order dated 27.08.2009,
passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, dismissing his
objections.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
purchased 1 marla of the suit land, vide registered sale deed dated
23.11.1995. The petitioner being a bonafide purchaser, his objections
could not have been dismissed summarily, without framing issues and
the grant of an opportunity to lead evidence.
Civil Revision No.6166 of 2009 2
I have heard counsel for the petitioner, and appraised the
order passed by the executing Court.
Admittedly, the suit was filed on 23.08.1995, whereas the
petitioner purchased 1 marla of the suit property on 23.09.1995, As a
result, the objections filed by the petitioner, who is a vendee pendente
lite are not maintainable. Order 21 Rule 102 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, contains a statutory bar to a vendee pendente lite, filing
objections. As admittedly, the petitioner is a vendee pendente lite, his
objections were not maintainable and were therefore, rightly
dismissed.
In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision
petition is dismissed.
[RAJIVE BHALLA]
JUDGE
27th October, 2009
Shivani Kaushik