Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh vs Balwinder Singh And Ors on 18 July, 2022
CR-2352-2018 and other connected matters -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
110 CR-2352-2018
Date of decision : 18.07.2022
Harjinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Balwinder Singh and others ....Respondents
2. CR-2294-2018
Date of decision : 18.07.2022
Manjit Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
Balwinder Singh and others ....Respondents
3. CR-2298-2018
Date of decision : 18.07.2022
Manjit Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
Balwinder Singh and others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr.Shamsher Singh Gill, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Devinder Kaushal, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
*****
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (ORAL)
These three connected revision petitions have been filed by
1 of 3
CR-2352-2018 and other connected matters -2-
the decree holder of many money (Recovery) decrees, which have
become final. The Executing Court while passing the identical orders has
dismissed the execution petition on the ground that the property that is
sought to be attached and sold does not belong to the judgment debtor,
who is common in all the three revision petitions. Sh.Balwinder Singh
son of Sh. Sukhdev Singh is the judgment debtor, in all the three decrees.
His father Sh. Sukhdev Singh died on 29.07.2010, while leaving behind
certain properties. The objection petition was filed claiming that Sh.
Balwinder Singh was never an owner of the property as Sh. Sukhdev
Singh bequeathed his property in favour of Sh. Kulwinder Singh son of
Sh. Sukhdev Singh and children of Sh. Balwinder Singh. While filing the
reply, the petitioner (decree holder) claimed that the alleged Will is forged
and fabricated and is being put forth in order to circumvent in execution
of the decree. The Executing Court has allowed the objection petition
without dealing with the aforesaid question. In the present case, Sh.
Sukhwinder Singh died prior to the passing of the decree. Once there was
a dispute on the question of fact, the Executing Court was required to give
opportunity to the decree holder to prove that fact. In such circumstances,
the Executing Court should have culled out the issues and permitted the
parties to lead evidence. A decree passed by the Court cannot be
permitted to be defeated without granting an opportunity to the decree
holder.
Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that
the order under challenge is appealable. It is noted here that these three
revision petitions were filed in the year 2018. The Court entertained the
2 of 3
CR-2352-2018 and other connected matters -3-
same without noticing this fact. At this stage, it would not be appropriate
to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal, if any maintainable.
Hence, this Court will proceed to decide the revision petition on merits.
In view of the limited issue involved in the present case, the
orders under challenge in all the three revision petitions are set aside. The
Executing Court is requested to cull out the issue on the question of
validity of the Will and grant opportunity to the parties to lead their
evidence in support of their case.
With these observations, all these three revision petitions are
allowed.
18.07.2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
anju JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
