Mohan Singh v. Prem A nts of m Aggarwal, has issued warrants of possession and d and
Case Details
CR-5810-2025 (O 025 (O&M) -1- IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH(cid:1) CHANDIGARH 121 CR-5810 Reserved Pronounc 5810-2025 (O&M) erved on:08.09.2025 nounced on:11.09.2025 (cid:1) Prem Aggarwal rwal (since deceased) through her GPA GPA holder ... Petitioner Versus (cid:1) Mohan Singh and gh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR MARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Present: Mr. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advoc Mr. Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate Mr. cate Ms. Radhika Deekshay, Advocate Ms. Ms. Ms. Shruti Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. for t Senior Advocate (through VC) Advocate with Mr. Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate for respondents. for r *** *** (cid:1) AMARINDER S DER SINGH GREWAL, J. 1. The present civil revision under Art The ion of er Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting etting aside orders dated 07.08.2025(A der 2025(Annexure P-5) as well as order dated 12.08.2025 8.2025 (Annexure P-6) whereby the unior the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chan Chandigarh (for short Executing uting Court) Case in Execution Case No.EXE/292/202 92/2025; Mohan Singh versus Prem A nts of m Aggarwal, has issued warrants of possession and d and directed the concerned SHO to efore O to execute the same on or before 28.08.2025 as as also order dated 18.08.2025 which .2025(Annexure P-8), vide which objections filed b filed by the petitioner have been dismi dismissed. 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case ar Succ two- ase are, that House No.1022, a two storey residentia idential building measuring two kan B, o kanals situated in Sector 21-B, PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O 025 (O&M) -2- Chandigarh, was h, was originally owned by Late Sh n his ate Shri Jagjit Singh and upon his demise in 1987 1987, devolved upon his three Singh three sons, namely Mohan Singh (respondent No.1 o.1), Late Kuldeep Singh, and Par o.3). nd Paramjit Singh (respondent No.3). On 12.06.1989, r
Legal Reasoning
989, respondent no.1(defendant-appel ent to appellant) executed an agreement to sell the suit pro it property to the petitioner (plaintif n of laintiff) for a total consideration of Rs.14,50,000/-, r , receiving Rs.25,000/- as earne the earnest money, he then signed the agreement, both both in his personal capacity and as thers. and as attorney for his two brothers. Thereafter, on 22 , on 22.02.1990, the petitioner (plaint o.44 (plaintiff) instituted Civil Suit No.44 of 1990 seeking ng permanent injunction against ), gainst the respondents (defendants), which was dism dismissed on 15.06.1990. On 11.06 intiff) 11.06.1990, the petitioner(plaintiff) filed Civil Suit N Suit No.552 of 1990 for specific pe ent to fic performance of the agreement to sell, which was was decreed in her favour on 11.12 y the 11.12.2009. The appeal filed by the respondents (def defendants) was dismissed on 19.0 gular n 19.09.2013. Their further Regular Second Appeal N peal No.1683 of 2014 was dismissed 2022, missed by this Court on 13.05.2022, affirming the de the decree of specific performance. .A. ance. The review application (R.A. No.31 of 2022) 2022) was also dismissed on 29.08. dents 29.08.2022, leading the respondents (defendants) to ap ) to approach the Hon’ble Supreme C eme Court in appeal. 2.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide The 2025, t, vide judgment dated 01.04.2025, allowed the appe e appeals and set aside the decree of s ieu of ee of specific performance. In lieu of the earnest mone t money of ₹25,000, awarded a compe avour compensation of ₹2 crores in favour of the petitioner tioner (plaintiff). Thereafter, the respo g the e respondents (defendants), being the decree holders , filed an execution petition be at ion before the Executing Court at Chandigarh. The h. The Executing Court, by orders dat 2025, ers dated 07.08.2025 and 12.08.2025, not only directe irected the respondents (defendant sation ts) to deposit the compensation amount but also t also went further to issue warrants o rants of possession against petitione er PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O 025 (O&M) -3- (plaintiff) with p with police aid. Aggrieved thereby, th ed by, the petitioner (plaintiff) has filed the present revis revision petition challenging the im erated the impugned orders as enumerated herein above. 3. Learned senior counsels assisted Lear r the isted by assisting counsels for the petitioner (plain (plaintiff), inter alia, contends ution nds that the impugned execution proceedings are w s are wholly misconceived inasmuch ourt, much as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment da ent dated 01.04.2025, had only passe nd of passed a money decree for refund of ₹2 crores as com as compensation, without any directio ion of irection for delivery of possession of House No.1022, .1022, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh. F Court arh. Further, the Executing Court travelled beyond eyond its jurisdiction by issuing war te the g warrants of possession despite the absence of any s any such relief in the decree. Furthe d are Furthermore, the warrants issued are vague and inexe inexecutable since the property is a th an ty is a two-storey building with an annexe, different fferent portions of which are occupied and upied by the petitioner (plaintiff) and third-party tenan tenants. It is pertinent to mention tha ion that the respondents (defendants dants) styled themselve selves as decree holders and conce other concealed the pendency of another execution petitio petition qua the same property, thereb court. thereby playing fraud upon the court. In addition, Sec n, Section 144 CPC has no applicat tained pplication as the petitioner obtained possession under under the agreement to sell and not by tly, it not by virtue of any decree. Lastly, it is argued that the hat the Executing Court erred in linki with n linking delivery of possession with payment of comp f compensation, and therefore the impu 2025, e impugned orders dated 07.08.2025, 12.08.2025, and , and 18.08.2025 are illegal, arbitrary ce in bitrary and unsustainable. Reliance in this regard is plac is placed on the judgment rendered by urt in red by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Murti Bhawani ani Mata Mandir Vs. Ramesh an 707, h and Others (2019) 3 SCC 707, Gammon India L dia Ltd Vs. M.S. Reddy & Co.(2004 uraj 004) 13 SCC 359, Rajbir Vs. Suraj PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O 025 (O&M) -4- Bhan and Anot Another(2022) 14 SCC 609, C.F. yya .F. Angadi Vs. Y.S. Hirannayya (1972) 1 SCC 19 C 191. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the respondent Lear at the ndents (defendants) submits that the Hon’ble Supreme upreme Court, while setting aside the d ance e the decree for specific performance has clearly recor recorded findings under paras 12 an at the 12 and 13 of its judgment that the petitioner had t had taken undue advantage of po r the possession delivered under the agreement to se to sell. Further, the Supreme Cou inary e Court awarded an extraordinary compensation of ion of ₹2 crores against a meagre -, eagre earnest money of ₹25,000/- thereby recognis cognising the harassment caused to ants). ed to the respondents (defendants) Furthermore, the re, the petitioner (plaintiff) has filed e the filed a review petition before the Supreme Court w ourt which was dismissed, but this fac led in his fact was deliberately concealed in the present petiti t petition, thus the petitioner (plaintiff) Court aintiff) has not approached this Court with clean hands hands. Subsequently, reliance is plac C and is placed upon Section 144 CPC and the principle of le of restitution. In addition, it is u sesses it is urged that the court possesses inherent powers wers to order restitution even if not e ection f not expressly invoked under Section 144 CPC. Lastl Lastly, it is contended that sinc tioner since the possession of petitioner (plaintiff) was on was only permissive under the agreem ee for agreement to sell and the decree for specific perform rformance has been set aside, the re being the respondents (defendants), being decree holders lders within the meaning of Sectio o Section 2(3) CPC, are entitled to restitution of th of the property, and the impugne rmity. pugned orders suffer no infirmity. Reliance in this n this regard is placed on the judgm n’ble judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court i ourt in Kavita Trehan Vs. Balsara H 4) 5 ra Hygiene Products Ltd, (1994) 5 SCC 380 and In Indian Council for Enviro-Lega dia Legal Action Vs. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 16 C 161. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O 025 (O&M) -5- 5. Having heard learned counsel for t Hav sal of l for the parties and upon perusal of the record, with with their able assistance, this Court in the Court does not find any force in the arguments advan advanced by learned Senior Counsels ecree unsels for the petitioner. The decree for specific perfo c performance was set aside by the H n the the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that the t the suit for specific performance it der 2 nce itself was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, as PC, as the petitioner (plaintiff) has m ) has consciously omitted to claim specific performa rformance in the earlier suit filed for thus, d for permanent injunction and thus, could not be perm e permitted to raise the same cause in use in subsequent suit. 6. It is admitted case of the petitioner It is put in itioner (plaintiff) that she was put in possession of the of the suit property, a two-storey re ing 2 rey residential building measuring 2 kanals, in lieu o lieu of agreement to sell dated 12.06 se of 12.06.1989. The relevant clause of agreement to sell to sell dated 12.06.1989 is reproduced duced as under:- “9. That as there as two tenants al “9. s, to ts already living in the premises, to facilitate the vacant possession of th facil has of the tenanted area, the seller has delivered possession of the ground deli inal und floor of the house. All original papers of the said house shall be pa pap the e passed on to the purchaser at the in.” time of completion of the bargain.” time 7. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid From hat at resaid clause, it is crystal clear that at the time of execu execution of the agreement to sell, tw ing in ell, two tenants were already living in the premises an ses and the petitioner (plaintiff) wa f the f) was delivered possession of the ground floor of t or of the house, thus, possession of fi never n of first floor and annexe was never delivered to the p o the petitioner (plaintiff) as per agree h it is r agreement to sell ibid. Though it is vehemently conte y contended that another execution pe y the ion petition has been preferred by the respondents-defe defendants titled as Mohan Singh a for gh and others Vs. Vinod Goyal for execution of judg of judgment dated 09.05.2018 passed roller, assed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whi h, which was obtained by collusion a f oral usion and fraud on the basis of oral PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O 025 (O&M) -6- tenancy, as the said Vinod Goyal was tenant of the ant of respondents-defendants on the basis of lease dee se deed dated 28.07.2005 but the said ght of e said lease deed has not seen light of the day. 8. The suit for specific performance The which ance was filed on 11.06.1990, which after almost 35 y st 35 years, culminated into passing of 25 by ing of judgment dated 01.04.2025 by the Hon’ble Sup e Supreme Court whereby decree for as set ree for specific performance was set aside and a decre a decree for refund of Rs.2 crores as c arnest es as compensation, in lieu of earnest money was gran s granted to petitioner (plaintiff). It t ies to It took 35 years for the parties to know the ultima ultimate fate of the dispute that arose ssing arose between them, after crossing various rungs o ngs of judicial review and it is no mon t is not an exception but common phenomenon. Th That is why the Hon’ble Supreme while preme Court way back in 1998 while passing judgmen gment in the case of Shreenath and hers and another Vs. Rajesh and others (1998) 4 SCC 54 C 543 has observed as under:- “The seeker of justice ma ong many a time has to take long circuitous routes, both on account circ the unt of hierarchy of courts and the procedural law. Such persons are a proc last re and can be dragged till the last ladder of the said hierarchy for rec ladd e he r receiving justice but even here he only breathes fear of receiving the fr only h he the fruits of that justice for which he has been aspiring to receive. The has f an The reach this stage is in itself an achievement and satisfaction as he, achi h a s he, by then has passed through a long arduous journey of the proce long dles rocedural law with many hurdles replica of mountain terrain with ri repl e is th ridges and furrows. When he is ready to take the bite of that fruit, h read ame it, he has to pass through the same terrain of the procedural law in terra the in the execution proceedings the morose is writ large on his face. W mor to e. What looked inevitable to him to receive it at his hands distance is rece zon. e is deluded back into the horizon. The creation of the hierarchy of The able of courts was for a reasonable objective for conferring greater s obje that er satisfaction to the parties that errors, if any, by any of the lower erro of a wer courts under the scrutiny of a PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O 025 (O&M) -7- higher court be rectified and long p high ood ng procedural laws also with good intention to exclude and filter out inten the out all unwanted who may be the cause of obstruction to such seeker caus But eeker in his journey to justice. But this obviously is one of the causes this rse, uses of delay in justice. Of course, under this pattern the party wrongf und ible ongfully gaining within permissible limits also stretches the litigation a limi this ion as much as possible. Thus this has been the cause of anxiety and has ties, and concern of various authorities, legislators and courts. How to elim legis ing eliminate such a long consuming justice? We must confess that we ha justi fore e have still to go a long way before true satisfaction in this regard is re true hes is received. Even after one reaches the stage of final decree, he has t the by as to undergo a long distance by passing pass through the ordained ed procedure in tion the execution proceedings before he receives the b proc the bowl of justice. 2. The courts within their limitati 2. the itation have been interpreting the procedural laws so as to conclude proc ing ude all possible disputes pertaining to the decretal property which is to th tion is within its fold in an execution proceeding, i.e., including what m proc y of at may be raised later by way of another bout of litigations thro anot arly through a fresh suit. Similarly legislatures equally are also end legis to endeavouring by amendments to achieve the same objective. The pre achi ard. present case is one in this regard. Keeping this in view, we now procee Kee se. oceed to examine the present case. 3. In interpreting any procedura 3. one ural law, where more than one interpretation is possible, the one inter ure one which curtails the procedure without eluding justice is to be ad with is e adopted. The procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid alwa on n aid of justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the rec whic be recipient of justice is not to be followed. follo xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx” 9. The execution proceedings were in The s, ere initiated by the decree holders who were defend defendants in the original suit and by ed by and by virtue of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supr Supreme Court setting aside the decr e and e decree of specific performance and passing a decree decree for refund of Rs.2 crores as c arnest as compensation in lieu of earnest PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O 025 (O&M) -8- money of Rs.25,0 Rs.25,000/-, they became decree holde e the holders and the plaintiff became the judgment debtor. debtor. Now the question arose befo in the e before this Court is whether in the absence of any f any explicit direction with respect to the spect to return of possession to the respondents-defe defendants, the Executing Court is nts of urt is justified in issuing warrants of possession and th and the answer is in affirmative. Und assed e. Undoubtedly, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble S ’ble Supreme Court is silent about po rty to out possession of the suit property to be returned to th d to the respondents-defendants after Rs.2 after getting compensation of Rs.2 crore. But it i ut it is also undisputed that the p t into petitioner-plaintiff was put into possession of the of the suit property in terms of agree .1989 f agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989 and when decree decree of specific performance of a ll has e of aforesaid agreement to sell has been set aside b side by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ies to Court, it is axiomatic that parties to agreement to sell to sell are required to be put in the sa at the the same position as they were at the time of executio ecution of the agreement. The resp joyed pondents-defendants had enjoyed earnest money of ney of Rs.25,000/- for almost 35 year return 5 years and thus, they have to return Rs.2 crores again s against the amount of Rs.25,000/- r- and conversely, since petitioner plaintiff enjoyed joyed possession of property for the a now r the aforesaid period, she has to now give back the pos the possession on receipt of compensat pensation of Rs.2 crores. 10. The argument advanced by learned s The tioner arned senior counsel for the petitioner is that Section 14 tion 144 CPC applies to cases where a ied or here a decree or an order is varied or reversed in any a any appeal, revision or other proceed dified roceedings or is set aside or modified in any suit insti t instituted for the purpose and in th which d in that situation, the Court which passed the decree decree or order shall, on the applicati any plication of any party entitled to any benefit by way o way of restitution or otherwise, cause de as , cause such restitution to be made as will, so far as ma r as may be, place the parties in the p have the position which they would have occupied; and s and since in the present case, the qua se, there was no such decree qua PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O 025 (O&M) -9- possession, princ , principle of restitution cannot be a s has t be applied, has no merit. As has already been disc en discussed above, the petitioner-plai ion in plaintiff was put into possession in lieu of agreemen eement to sell dated 12.06.1989, whic te, in , which ceased to exist as on date, in view of the judgm e judgment passed by the Hon’ble Sup ee for le Supreme Court whereby decree for specific perform rformance has been set aside and th tained and the said judgment has attained finality. Therefo herefore, once the agreement to sell of the o sell is unenforeable in view of the judgment of the of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then e then the possession received by the petitioner-plainti plaintiff is required to be returned back , as ed back to respondents-defendants, as she is getting R tting Rs.2 crores as compensation a ey of tion against the earnest money of Rs.25,000/-. It c . It cannot be a win-win situation for thing on for her. She has to lose something and that is posses possession in the present case. The p ent is The principle of unjust enrichment is attracted where here a person has received benefit of other efit of money or property of another against the funda fundamental principle of justice or e and e or equity and good conscience and the unjust enrich enrichment is basic to the subject of sually ject of restitution. They are usually linked together ether and restitution is frequently b f just ntly based upon the theory of just enrichment. If th If the argument of learned senior c , then nior counsels is to be accepted, then to claim possessi ssession, respondents-defendants will te suit will be forced to file a separate suit for possession a sion and again to take a long circ ation rcuitous route, as the litigation continues for yea for years and a litigant remains in susp s case in suspense about the fate of his case till the last ladde t ladder of hierarchy of courts and so to the and sometimes results unfolds to the next generation ation. This cannot be true purport o y the rport of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme preme Court. 11. Further, the judgment relied upon b Furt ata pon by him in Murti Bhawani Mata Mandir’s case se (supra) is not applicable, as in t of the as in the said case possession of the plaintiff was not as not even proved and therefore, ther rn the e, there was no question to return the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O 025 (O&M) -10- possession and in and in those circumstances, provision re not visions of Section 144 CPC were not attracted, there be here being no variation or reversal of a ase in al of a decree or order. In the case in hand, it is undisp undisputed that the petitioner-plaintif terms ff was put in possession in terms of agreement to ent to sell dated 12.06.1989. There ettled There is no dispute to the settled proposition of la of law that the Executing Court cann and it rt cannot go beyond the decree and it has to execute th ute the decree in accordance with law eld in th law and as it is, as has been held in the judgments of nts of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in t Ltd urt in the cases of Gammon India Ltd and Rajbir Vs. Su . Suraj Bhan (supra), as referred to rred to by learned senior counsel. 12. t is trite that if there is any amb It is f the mbiguity in the language of the decree, the Execu Executing Court is competent to cons ect to o construe it in order to give effect to the true import a port and intention of the judgment an into and if necessary, by looking into the pleadings an gs and the judgment. The Hon’ble din n’ble Supreme Court in Shaifuddin (dead) through ugh LRs Vs. Kanhiya Lal (dead) t 023 ad) through LRs and others 2023 SCC OnLine SC e SC 478 has observed as under:- “4. “4. xxxx xxxx iii. The purpose of an execution iii. the tion proceeding is to enable the decree-holder to obtain the fruits o dec its of his decree. iv. In case where the language of iv. two e of the decree is capable of two interpretations, one of which assis inte tain assists the decree-holder to obtain the fruits of the decree and the othe the the other prevents him from taking the benefits of the decree, the interpret ben ree- rpretation which assists the decree holder should be accepted. hol v. A decree is not to be rendered fu v. A nal d futile on technicalities. A rational approach is necessitated in cases app the ases where a decree has been the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O 025 (O&M) -11- subject of prolonged litigation an sub be n and a fair construction is to be given thereto.” giv Further, the Hon’ble Supreme C Furt r v. me Court in Rajinder Kumar v. Kuldeep Singh, ( , (2014) 15 SCC 529 has held as u ld as under:- “21 21. If the suit for specific perform yed rformance is not decreed as prayed for, then alone the question of an for, tive of any reference to the alternative relief would arise. Therefore, t reli any e, there is no question of any ambiguity. am As held by by this Court mal in Topanmal Chhotamal v. Kundomal Gangara Chh garam al [Topanmal Chhotamal v. Kundomal Gangaram, AIR 1960 v. . At 960 SC 388, p. 390, para 4: “4. At the worst the decree can be said to the case id to be ambiguous. In such a case it is the duty of the executing cou it is For court to construe the decree. For the purpose of interpreting a the are a decree, when its terms are ambiguous, the court would certai am the ertainly be entitled to look into the pleadings and the judgment….” plea wed t….”] and consistently followed thereafter, even if there is any am the ting y ambiguity, it is for the executing court to construe the decree if ne cou the if necessary after referring to the judgment. If sufficient guidance i jud the nce is not available even from the judgment, the court is even free to jud s to ee to refer to the pleadings so as to construe the true import of the con ourt the decree. No doubt, the court cannot go behind the decree or can hile or beyond the decree. But while executing a decree for specific per exe e of performance, the court, in case of any ambiguity, has necessarily to any s to ly to construe the decree so as to give effect to the intention of the p give he parties….” PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O 025 (O&M) -12- 13. If in the decree for specific performa If in t then rformance possession is inherent then in the case of den of denial of specific performance, if t been ce, if the possession has already been offered in terms o terms of agreement to sell, the same ou back ame ought to have been restored back to the party oppo y opposite. The Hon’ble Supreme Co ed in me Court in the judgment passed in Kavita Trehan’s an’s case (supra), while dealing w on as ling with the scope of restitution as enshrined under under Section 144 CPC, has held s not held that law of restitution is not confined only to nly to the jurisdiction of the Civil C that il Court but it is general law that every authority, ority, Tribunal or the Court has the p put a s the power and jurisdiction to put a party back to the to the same position when a decree o ersed cree or an order is varied or reversed in appeal, revisio revision or other proceedings. Furthe e said Furthermore, in para 183 of the said judgment, it is ob it is observed as under:- “183. We may add that restitution “18 ong tion and unjust enrichment, along with an overlap, have to be viewed w with ges ed with reference to the two stages i.e. pre-suit and post-suit. In th i.e. s a n the former case, it becomes a substantive law (or common law) rig subs der; ) right that the court will consider; but in the latter case, when the pa but and e parties are before the Court and any act/omission, or simply passage any tion ssage of time, results in deprivation of one, or unjust enrichment of th of o the f the other, the jurisdiction of the Court to levelise and do justice is in Cou dily is independent and must be readily wielded, otherwise it will be allow wiel ess, allowing the Court’s own process, along with time delay, to do injustic alon stice.” 14. In the present case, the constructi In t uting struction adopted by the Executing Court was both both reasonable and equitable to en s not to ensure that the decree was not reduced to a me a mere paper relief. The plea that t ically that the decree did not specifically direct delivery o very of possession cannot be accep s and accepted in the peculiar facts and circumstances, w ces, where the very foundation of the ent to of the litigation was the agreement to sell under whic which possession had been transf ourt, transferred. The Executing Court, PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O 025 (O&M) -13- therefore, rightly rightly issued warrants of possession s ect to ssion so as to give complete effect to the judgment of t nt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. As an upshot of above, no ground As a rticle round for interference under Article 227 of the Const Constitution is made out and the imp .2025 e impugned orders dated 07.08.2025 and 12.08.2025 .2025 passed by the Executing Court e Court are affirmed. Resultantly, the instant revision petition stands dismissed. 16. Miscellaneous application(s), if any, Misc
Decision
if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARIN ARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE September 11, 2 Pankaj* , 2025 ned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes Yes PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh