High Court
Case Details
CR-5320-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR GARH(cid:1) 110 (cid:1) Garg Dhani Ram Garg Paramjit Singh CR-5320-2025 CR Date of Decision:08.08.2025 Dat Versus(cid:1) tioner ... Petitioner ... Responden ondent CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR MARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Pawan K. Longia, Advocate Present: Mr. for the petitioner. for t *** *** (cid:1) AMARINDER S RAL) DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present revision petition has be The has been filed under Article 227 of t 7 of the Constitution of n of India for setting aside the im the impugned order dated 04.03.20 .03.2025 (Annexure P-8) 8) passed by the learned Civil Ju ivil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhia udhiana whereby applicat pplication/objections filed by the petiti e petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58 CP 58 CPC have been dismi dismissed and the impugned order d rder dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P re P-10) vide which joint joint property of the petitioner has be has been put to sale. 2. In brief, the facts, as culled out from In b ut from the revision petition, are that t that the respondent-Param Paramjit Singh along with his real b real brother namely Gurpreet Singh ingh had forged two separ separate agreements to sell dated 17.0 ed 17.05.2013 showing therein petition etitioner as a seller of two of two different plots, which were ne ere never owned and possessed by hi by him. In both agreeme greements, respondent-Paramjit Sing Singh and Gurpreet Singh had pa had paid Rs.11,75,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- (total Rs.23,7 s.23,75,000/-) as earnest money in ca y in cash to the petitioner itioner. However, instead of filing s iling suit for specific performance, t nce, the respondent had filed suit for recovery of earnest arnest money along with interest @12 st @12% per annum on th on the last day of limitation i.e. 16.0 e. 16.05.2016. The petitioner contest ontested the aforesaid sui
Legal Reasoning
id suit but the learned trial Court dec urt decreed the same vide judgment a ent and PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5320-2025 -2- decree dated 17. ed 17.11.2023 to recover Rs.12,00,00 ,000/- from the petitioner along w ong with interest @6% pe 6% per annum from 01.11.2014 till its till its realization. During the penden endency of the aforesaid c esaid civil suit, respondent-plaintiff ha tiff had filed an application under Ord er Order 38 Rule 5 CPC r CPC read with Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C & 2 CPC for attachment of property operty of the petitioner, w , which was allowed vide order d order dated 18.08.2018. The aforesa aforesaid judgment and dec nd decree of the learned trial Court ha ourt has been challenged in appeal by t al by the petitioner, which which is pending consideration. on. Despite pendency of appeal, t peal, the respondent filed t filed execution application stating the ing therein that no appeal has been fil een filed as per his know knowledge. In the execution proc n proceedings, the petitioner had fil ad filed objections before before the learned Executing Court b ourt but the same have been dismiss ismissed vide order dated dated 04.03.2025 and sale of the pr the property has been ordered witho without deciding the appl e application under Order 21 Rule 66 ule 66 CPC. On 30.07.2025, the learn e learned Executing Court Court allowed the application filed by led by the respondent-DH for sale of t f the property of the p f the petitioner, despite the fact that an that an application for adjournment w ent was filed by the petiti e petitioner on the ground that revision evision petition is pending considerati ideration before this Court Court. Hence, the revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Lear itioner submits that a compromise h mise has already been eff en effected between the parties for for an amount Rs.22 lakhs and t and the respondent-plain plaintiff/DH has received half of th f of the said amount and as such, t uch, the learned trial Cou al Court should not file the executio ecution application against the prese present petitioner for auc for auctioning his half share in the pr property jointly owned by him w with his brother. The The learned Executing Court has w wrongly held that there is no bar o bar on the auction of ha of half share in the joint property an erty and that it is for the final owner owner to apply for partitio partition of the property and not the t the decree holder at this stage. The objections filed b filed before the learned Executing Co ing Court have been dismissed and sa and sale PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5320-2025 -3- of the property h erty has been ordered without decidi deciding the application under Orde Order 21 Rule 66 CPC, th PC, thus, prays for setting aside of th e of the impugned orders as mention entioned above. 3. 4. Heard. Hea A perusal of the record reveals that A pe ls that the compromise as alleged to ed to be effected between etween the parties was between Param Paramjit Singh and Gurpreet Singh Singh as first party and Sa and Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal and Jaspa d Jaspal Rai Singla as second party. T rty. The petitioner-JD wa was not privy to the said compro ompromise nor was he signatory to t ry to the compromise date se dated 30.01.2019. In the absence bsence of any compromise, decree w cree was passed in favour favour of the respondent-DH for rec for recovery of Rs.12 lakhs along w ong with interest @6% pe 6% per annum from the petitioner-JD JD from 01.12.2014 till realizatio alization. As the petitione titioner failed to deposit the decre decretal amount along with intere interest, respondent-DH h DH has submitted the property of p y of petitioner-JD before the Executi xecuting Court and therea thereafter, having left no other option option, property of the petitioner join er jointly owned by him wi him with his brother has been put to au t to auction. 5.
Decision
In view of the above, this Court find In v rt finds no illegality and infirmity in t ity in the impugned orders orders dated 04.03.2025 and 30.07.2 0.07.2025 passed by the learned Ci ed Civil Judge (Junior D ior Division), Ludhiana. Resultantly ultantly, the present revision petition etition is dismissed. , 2025 August 08, 2025 Pankaj* ned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No AMARINDER SINGH GREWA (AM JUDGE EWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh