Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jeeto vs Bikkar Singh on 11 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158421
1
CR-5704 of 2023
2023:PHHC:158421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-5704 of 2023
Date of decision: 11.12.2023
Jeeto
......Petitioner
Versus
Bikkar Singh
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Mr. C.S. Singhal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated
27.07.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby objections filed by the
petitioner/judgment-debtor under Section 28 read with Section 20 of
the Specific Relief Act in execution application filed by the
respondent/decree-holder, have been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiff filed a
suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell
dated 24.06.2013 regarding land measuring 2 kanals 11 marlas situated
within the revenue estate of village Bullowal, Tehsil and District
Jalandhar bearing khata No.249/279, comprising khasra No.43//10/1,
hadbast No.354 as entered in the jamabandi for the year 2007-2008
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158421
CR-5704 of 2023
2023:PHHC:158421
consisting of submersible motor and shed etc. and in the alternative for
decree of recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- and also for permanent injunction
restraining the defendant, her agents, attorneys, associates from further
alienating, mortgaging, leasing and exchanging the suit property or
changing the nature of the suit property except in due course of law.
The said suit was decreed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 18.09.2018.
Respondent/decree-holder filed execution application for execution of
the aforesaid judgment and decree wherein petitioner/judgment-debtor
filed objections under Section 28 read with Section 20 of the Specific
Relief Act for rescission of the contract on the basis of which decree
dated 18.09.2018 had been passed. The said objections filed by the
petitioner have been dismissed by the Executing Court vide impugned
order dated 27.07.2023. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
executing Court failed to appreciate that trial Court made no mention of
payment of the balance sale consideration, however, respondent/decree
holder was bound to deposit the balance sale consideration within a
reasonable time after passing of the decree, but he had failed to do so,
therefore, in terms of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, the
agreement on the basis of which the decree had been passed is liable to
be rescinded.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the record.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158421
CR-5704 of 2023
2023:PHHC:158421
5. It is well-settled that executing Court cannot go beyond
the decree. The petitioner/judgment-debtor could have filed the
objections in appeal before the appellate Court. However, the appeal
filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, the decree
has become final.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meenakshi Saxena v. ECGC
Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 479 has held as under: -
"The whole purpose of execution proceedings is to enforce
the verdict of the court. Executing court while executing
the decree is only concerned with the execution part of it
but nothing else. The court has to take the judgment in its
face value. It is settled law that executing court cannot go
beyond the decree. But the difficulty arises when there is
ambiguity in the decree with regard to the material
aspects. Then it becomes the bounden duty of the court to
interpret the decree in the process of giving a true effect to
the decree. At that juncture the executing court has to be
very cautious in supplementing its interpretation and
conscious of the fact that it cannot draw a new decree. The
executing court shall strike a fine balance between the two
while exercising this jurisdiction in the process of giving
effect to the decree."
7. In view of the above, it appears that the present objections
were filed by the petitioner only to delay the execution proceedings.
The impugned order passed by the Executing Court is well-reasoned
and it does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and is not having
any element of arbitrariness or perversity. The revisional jurisdiction of
this Court is quite limited and considering the facts and circumstances
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158421
CR-5704 of 2023
2023:PHHC:158421
of the case, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order by
way of exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
8. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same stands
dismissed.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
11.12.2023 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158421
4 of 4
