Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Kaur Deceased Through Lr And ... vs Paramjit Kaur on 25 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
246 CR-5495-2019
Date of Decision.:25.10.2024
Surjit Kaur (deceased) through LR .....Pe33oner
Vs.
Paramjit Kaur .....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate
for the pe oner.
Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
By way of this civil revision filed under Ar cle 227 of the Cons tu on, pe oner prays to set aside order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the Execu ng Court dismissing the objec ons of the pe oners and also to set aside order dated 29.04.2019 of learned Addi onal District Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order dated 27.11.2018.
2. As the paper-book would reveal, an agreement to sell regarding 17 Kanals 19 Marla of land was executed between plain ff Paramjit Kaur/decree-holder (respondent herein) and Shri Sucha Singh. Said Sucha Singh having expired, plain ff brought the suit for specific performance against the legal heirs of Sucha Singh. The relief of specific performance was declined but alterna ve relief of recovery of ₹15,80,000/- was granted in favour of plain ff and against the defendants / judgment-debtors vide judgment dated 24.03.2014 of learned Addi onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala (Annexure P/1).
1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 31-10-2024 14:22:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140902 CR-5495-2019 -2-
3. In order to realize the decretal amount, execu on was filed. 24 Kanal of land belonging to the JDs was a=ached. A>er making necessary statutory compliances including no ces under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC, the auc on was conducted on 08.11.2017 and the sale cer ficate was issued on 13.04.2018 with regard to 17 Kanal 6 Marla 3 Sarsai of land for an amount of ₹21,90,000/- in favour of the decree-holder. It is not disputed that auc on sale was confirmed and it is the decree-holder, who had par cipated in the auc on.
4.. Therea>er, objec ons were filed by Amritpal Singh son of one of the deceased JD Surjit Singh; and Charan Singh son of Sucha Singh against the auc on sale. Said objec ons were dismissed by the Execu ng Court on 30.11.2018 and appeal against the order has been dismissed by the Appellate Court on 29.04.2019.
5. The aforesaid orders have been assailed before this Court.
6. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent/decree- holder submits that objec ons were not maintainable without any deposit and the deposit having been made beyond 60 days from the auc on sale.
7. On other hand, counsel for pe oners submit that during pendency of present pe on, decretal amount has been deposited.
8. In "Seetha Arunachalam v. The Andhra Bank Limited" 2018(3) CCC 741, it has been held by Madras High Court that when sale is confirmed and became absolute, any subsequent payment in full sa sfac on of the decree by the JD will not vi ate auc on sale.
In "P. Ranemma v. P. Annaiah" 2011(8) R.C.R.(Civil) 1110, the decree-holder had purchased the a=ached property. Sale cer ficate was issued in his favour. Applica on was made by the judgment-debtor for permission of the Court to deposit the en re amount and for seDng aside 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 31-10-2024 14:22:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140902 CR-5495-2019 -3- the sale. It was held by Andhra Pradesh High Court that such an applica on may be made within 60 days from the date of sale.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in "Annapurna v. Mallikarjun" Law Finder Doc ID # 541299 that limita on to file the applica on to deposit and set aside the auc on sale under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC, is 60 days.
9. In the present case, it has not been disputed by the counsel for the pe oners that objec ons against the auc on sale were moved beyond 60 days. However, counsel for the pe oners contend that before this Court, the amount has since been deposited on 16.09.2019 as was no ced by this Court in its order dated 14.02.2019.
10. This Court does not find any merit in the present pe on. Auc on sale having already been confirmed in favour of respondent/decree-holder and the deposit having been made beyond 60 days, the same cannot be entertained being barred by limita on. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has also no ced that auc on was conducted a>er making all the statutory compliances. Simply because subsequently, payment has been made in the sa sfac on of the decree by the pe oners before this court, will not vi ate the auc on sale.
11. As such, there is no merit in the present appeal. Amount deposited by the pe oners before this court be refunded to them. Registry to do the needful.
Dismissed.
(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE October 25, 2024 Nee ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 31-10-2024 14:22:22 :::