Charan Singh (Since ... vs Upkar Singh Khajala And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 16190 P&H

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
109

                                                    CR-1363 of 2018 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision: 08.12.2022

Charan Singh (deceased) through LRs                                 ..Petitioner

                                    Versus

Upkar Singh Khajala and others                                   ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Mohinder Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raghuvinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr. R.D.Gupta, Advocate, for respondent no.1.

Mr. Sant Kashyap, Advocate for the applicant (in CM-15456-CII-2022)

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

C.M.No.15456-CII-2022

1. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by

an affidavit, the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and Sh.

Satwant Singh son of Sh. Wariam Singh, is impleaded as respondent no.8

2. The amended memo of parties is taken on record.

MAIN

3. The first appellate court while hearing the appeal filed by a 3rd

party objector, has remanded the matter back to the Executing Court for

deciding the matter afresh. In a suit filed by the petitioner for grant of

decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell

with respect to plot measuring 750 sq. yds. comprised in khasra no.636 min

has been decreed. The property is located in the area of Sultanwind, Sub

Urban, Daburji Road, Amritsar.

                                      1 of 2

 CR-1363 of 2018 (O&M)                                             -2-

4. The respondents filed the objections in the execution petition

claiming that the original owners were Karnail Singh, Mehal Singh and

Jarnail Singh sons of Mit Singh and the property was never owned and

possessed by Ramandeep Singh, Judgment Debtor No.2. Many suits

between the parties are pending. Some have been decided in favour of the

3rd party objector, whereas the other cases are still pending. In such

circumstances, the court has found it appropriate to remand the matter back

to the Executing Court to hear and decide the objections in a detailed manner

like a suit as required under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC.

5. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.

6. Dismissed.

7. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

December 08, 2022                               (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt                                                    JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned               :       Yes/No
Whether reportable                      :       Yes/No




                                       2 of 2