Tuesday, 02, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Monu Kumar vs Neelam Sukhija And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 6904 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 6904 P&H
Judgement Date : 2 April, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Monu Kumar vs Neelam Sukhija And Another on 2 April, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044231



                                                       2024:PHHC: 044231


ESA-13-2024 (O&M)                                                         -1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


                                ESA-13-2024 (O&M)
                                Date of Decision: 02nd April, 2024

Monu Kumar
                                                     ... Appellant/Objector
                                V/s.


Neelam Sukhija and another
                                                     ... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL



Present :   Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
            for the appellant/Objector.
                   ****

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.(Oral)

1. Third party objector has filed this Execution Second Appeal.

He wants to stop implementation of the judgment and decree for specific

performance of the Agreement to Sell passed in favour of respondent No. 1

on 16.12.2017. The appellant claims to have purchased the property from

the Judgment Debtor on 09.12.2014, whereas Judgment Debtor entered into

an Agreement to Sell with respondent No. 1-Decree Holder on 27.11.2014.

The Judgment Debtor did not honor the Agreement to Sell forcing the

decree holder to file suit for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell

which was decreed on 16.12.2017. The sale deed in favour of the appellant

is subsequent to the Agreement to Sell, hence the appellant's rights are

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044231

2024:PHHC: 044231

ESA-13-2024 (O&M) -2-

subservience to the rights of the decree holder. Moreover, both the Courts

have found that in-fact it is the JD and her husband who is in possession and

not the appellant. Hence, no ground is made out to entertain this appeal.

2. Dismissed.

3. All the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

02nd April, 2024                               (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Seema                                               JUDGE


        Whether speaking/reasoned        Yes
        Whether Reportable               Yes /No




                                      2 of 2

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter