Jagan Nath vs Sukhjinder Kaur & Ors on 27 November, 2017

CRM-M-23774-2012 (OM) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-23774-2012 (OM)
Date of decision: 27.11.2017

Jagan Nath
… Petitioner
Vs.

Sukhjinder Kaur and others
… Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.5.

*******

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of the order dated 21.05.2012

(Annexure P-9) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing the

revision petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 03.02.2009

(Annexure P-8) passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, vide which

the objections filed by respondent No.5 Jagjit Singh in execution of sale of

agricultural land for realization of arrears of maintenance of respondents No.1

to 3 against respondent No.4, were accepted and sale proceedings were set

aside.

Brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1 to 3 filed an

application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against

respondent No.4, which was allowed by the Court of SDJM, Samrala. In

1 of 4
30-11-2017 00:05:18 :::
CRM-M-23774-2012 (OM) -2-

execution of the order, warrants of attachment for the recovery of Rs.51,600/-

were issued and the Naib Tehsildar was directed to execute the warrants by way

of attachment of 9 kanal 7 marlas of land, which was owned by respondent

No.4 and vide rapat No.422 dated 22.06.2001, the said property was attached.

Since respondent No.4 failed to pay the amount, the attached property was put

to auction on 20.09.2006. The petitioner was the successful auction purchaser

and deposited an amount of Rs.90,579/- on the date of auction and the

remaining amount of Rs.2,71,734/- was deposited in the treasury.

Thereafter, respondent No.5 filed objections against the warrants of

sale on 10.11.2006 on the allegations that respondent No.4 Bhupinder Singh

had entered into an agreement to sell dated 05.07.1995 and delivered the

possession to him. Respondent No.5 had filed a suit for specific performance on

the basis of aforesaid agreement to sell and in objections prayed for setting

aside the sale proceedings dated 20.09.2006. The said objections filed by

respondent No.5 was allowed vide impugned order dated 03.02.2009 (Annexure

P-8). The petitioner filed a revision petition, which was also dismissed by the

revisional Court vide impugned order dated 21.05.2012 (Annexure P-9).

Notice of motion in this case was issued on 08.08.2012 and the

petition remained pending since then. Respondent No.5 has filed reply and has

opposed the prayer made in the petition on the ground that vide judgment and

decree dated 28.10.2011, a decree for symbolic possession by way of specific

performance of agreement to sell dated 05.07.1995 has already been passed.

The operative part of the judgment is reproduced as below: –

“In the light of above discussion Civil Appeal No.13 of 2010 is

hereby dismissed. Civil Appeal No.12 of 2010 is hereby partly

2 of 4
30-11-2017 00:05:19 :::
CRM-M-23774-2012 (OM) -3-

allowed and suit of the plaintiff/appellant is partly decreed and it

is held that plaintiff is entitled to get symbolic possession of land

measuring 12K-19M out of total suit land by way of specific

performance of agreement Ex.P1 dated 05.07.95, on payment of

balance sale consideration by the appellant/plaintiff within three

months from today, on which Bhupinder Singh son of Mohkam

Singh shall execute the sale deed to aforesaid extent in favour of

plaintiff/appellant within next one month, failing which

plaintiff/appellant is entitled to get the same executed with the

intervention of trial Court. In case the land measuring 12K-19M is

still lying attached for recovery of Rs.51,600/- or any other amount

then the balance sale consideration is to be adjusted against the

said amount. Plaintiff/appellant is also entitled to decree of

permanent injunction restraining Bhupinder Singh son of Mohkam

Singh from alienating aforesaid land measuring 12K-19M and

further restraining him from dispossessing the plaintiff/appellant

from the said land except in due course of law. It is made clear

that plaintiff/appellant is not entitled to alternative relief of

recovery of Rs.4,69,000/- along with interest. To this extent, the

impugned judgment stands set aside. However, the parties are left

to bear their own costs. Copy of this judgment be placed on the

judicial file of civil Appeal No.13 of 2010.”

On the last date of hearing, the case was partly heard and the

petitioner sought time to verify the fact that if the amount deposited by him in

pursuance to the auction purchase is lying deposited in the treasury. Counsel for

3 of 4
30-11-2017 00:05:19 :::
CRM-M-23774-2012 (OM) -4-

the petitioner submits that aforesaid amount of Rs.90,579/- as well as the

amount of Rs.2,71,734/- deposited by the petitioner was lying deposited in the

treasury.

In view of the fact that the objections filed by respondent No.5

have been allowed by both the Courts below in the light of judgment dated

28.10.2011 passed by the Civil Court, thereby adjusting the amount of

Rs.51,600/-, which was payable by respondent No.4 to respondents No.1 to 3, I

find no merit in the present petition.

However, it will be open to the petitioner to withdraw the aforesaid

amount of Rs.90,579/- and Rs.2,71,937/- deposited by him in the treasury and if

permissible, the petitioner may take his legal course against respondent No.4 for

the recovery of interest.

With the abovesaid observations, this petition is dismissed.

[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
27.11.2017 JUDGE
vishnu

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No

4 of 4
30-11-2017 00:05:19 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *