Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ved Parkash vs Jaspal Singh And Another on 13 December, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159827
2023:PHHC:159827
[122] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-377-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 13.12.2023
Ved Parkash ...Petitioner
versus
Jaspal Singh and another ....Respondents
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Kumar Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (ORAL)
[1] The petitioner herein is a judgment debtor. He assails the
correctness of order passed on 06.01.2020 by the Executing Court while
confirming the Court auction in favour of the decree-holder and
consigning the execution petition to the record after having been fully
satisfied. Though, in the beginning, the petitioner filed an appeal before
the District Judge, however, subsequently revision petition was filed
during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner was granted an
opportunity to choose from one of the remedies availed, and as a result
the appeal filed before the learned District Judge has been withdrawn.
[2] In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present
case, the relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed. In a Civil Suit
titled as 'Jaspal Singh and anotherversus Ved Parkash', the Civil Court
passed a decree of recovery of Rs.1,58,240/- against Ved Parkash on
12.09.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the decree
of recovery, the decree-holder lodged an FIR No.269, dated 13.09.2007,
under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Sirsa, against the
petitioner and on the intervention of Panchayat, the parties settled their
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159827
2023:PHHC:159827
CR-377-2020 (O&M) -2-
dispute and the decree-holder agreed to withdraw the civil as well as the
criminal case. An agreement to this effect was reduced into writing on
21.05.2009. Ultimately, in terms of the compromise arrived at between
the parties, the petitioner was discharged as the matter was compounded.
The aforesaid order was passed by the competent Court on 30.05.2009.
On the other hand, the decree-holder did not pursue the execution
petition, forcing the Executing Court to dismiss the execution petition in
default for non prosecution on 24.10.2009. The petitioner (JD) thought
that the decree-holder has withdrawn the execution petition. With the
passage of time, he shifted to Jaipur. However, the decree-holder filed an
application for restoration of the execution petition on 30.01.2019 i.e.
after a period of nearly 09 years from the date the execution petition was
dismissed in default. In the application for restoration, notice was issued
to the judgment debtor (petitioner herein). However, on report of refusal,
the Court proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and the execution
petition was restored to its original number on 10.07.2019. In the
execution petition, the residential house of the petitioner was attached.
On 06.12.2019, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex
parte proceedings / orders passed by the learned Executing Court. In the
aforesaid application, the petitioner stated all the facts which have
already been noticed in detail. However, the Court rather than passing
any order on the aforesaid application, directed the sale of the property if
the Judgment Debtor failed to pay the amount in the stipulated time.
Thereafter, the property was sold on 04.01.2020, and the decree-holder
with the permission of the Court purchased the same. Subsequently, as
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159827
2023:PHHC:159827
CR-377-2020 (O&M) -3-
noticed the sale was confirmed and the execution petition was disposed
of.
[3] Heard learned counsel representing the parties at length and
with their able assistance perused the paper book.
[4] Learned counsel representing the petitioner, while
highlighting the facts which have already been noticed by this Court,
submits that the Executing Court was required to decide the application
filed by the petitioner on 06.12.2019. He submits that in absence of the
decision, the Executing Court was not correct in ordering the sale of the
property in dispute and for disposing the execution petition. On the other
hand, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that on
09.12.2019, the petitioner appeared in the Court in person and was
directed to make the payment by the executing Court. He submits that
once the petitioner had joined the execution proceedings, no further order
on the application filed by the petitioner was required to be passed.
[5] This Court has considered the submissions and analyzed the
arguments of learned counsel representing the parties.
[6] It is evident that the Executing Court has failed to decide
application filed by the petitioner on 06.12.2019. While filing the
application, the petitioner had disclosed certain facts and a settlement
arrived at on 21.05.2009. In the peculiar facts of the present case, the
Executing Court was required to examine the correctness and validity of
the aforesaid settlement before ordering sale of the Judgment Debtor's
property. Without an iota of doubt, on 09.12.2019, the Judgment Debtor
appeared in person, but the Court directed him to either make the due
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159827
2023:PHHC:159827
CR-377-2020 (O&M) -4-
payment to the decree-holder and warned him that the warrants of sale
would be executed for the date already fixed if the payment due to the
decree-holder is not paid within the stipulated time period. Thus, there
was no adjudication on the application filed by the petitioner on
06.12.2019. The Executing Court has committed a manifest error in
selling the property through Court auction without deciding application
dated 06.12.2019. In the application filed before the Executing Court,
the Judgment Debtor had already stated that there was a settlement
arrived at between the parties on 21.05.2009.
[7] Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the Court auction of the
Judgment Debtor's property on 04.01.2020 and its confirmation on
06.01.2020 is set aside. The Executing Court, at the first instance, is
requested to decide the application dated 06.12.2019, in accordance with
law. Now this application shall be treated as an objection petition filed
on behalf of the Judgment Debtor. After granting an opportunity to the
decree-holder to file a reply, the Court shall proceed to decide the
application.
[8] With these observations, the revision petition is allowed.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
JUDGE
13.12.2023
'Rajneesh'
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159827
4 of 4
