Ranbir Singh vs Usha Devi And Others on 22 October, 2009

Civil Revision No. 6069 of 2009(O&M)   1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

                                Civil Revision No. 6069 of 2009 (O&M)

                                Date of Decision: October 22 , 2009


Ranbir Singh                                             ...... Petitioner

      Versus

Usha Devi and others                                     ...... Respondents


Coram:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari


Present:     Mr. Dheeraj Bali, Advocate
             for the petitioner.
                    ****

Ajay Tewari, J.

This petition has been filed against the rejection of the

objection petition in an execution for recovery of a claim awarded by a

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Learned counsel has argued that his client had entered into an

agreement to sell dated 12.11.2008. The learned Executing Court has,

however, rejected the objections to the attachment holding that the

execution petition is pending since 11.4.2008 and previous efforts to

auction the land have been thwarted. On a consideration of the material, the

learned Executing Court has found that the agreement to sell in favour of

the petitioner is a manipulated agreement with only a view to prevent the

decree holders from receiving the compensation due to them. Learned

counsel has cited Vannarakkal Kallalathil Sreedharan v.

Chandramaath Balakrishnan and another reported as 1990(1) Recent

Revenue Reports 366 to contend that in that case the Hon’ble Supreme
Civil Revision No. 6069 of 2009(O&M) 2

Court had held that where a sale deed had been executed of an attached land

in pursuance to an agreement to sell entered into prior to the order of

attachment, the contractual right would prevail over the right of the

attaching creditor. However, this judgment would not be applicable for the

simple reason that here no sale deed has been executed . In the case before

the Hon’ble Supreme Court a right had been created which was being sought

to be protected by the contracting purchaser. In the present case as noticed

above only an agreement to sell has been executed. In the circumstances I

am not persuaded to hold that the order of the learned Executing Court

suffers from such material irregularity as to be liable for interference under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently this revision is dismissed.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc.

Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE

October 22, 2009
sunita