Punjab-Haryana High Court
Janak Dulari And Anr vs Jeet Singh @ Ajit Singh Thr Legal Heir on 8 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047943
CR-4305-2018(O&M) 2024:PHHC:047943
1
122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-4305-2018(O&M)
Date of decision :08.04.2024
Janak Dulari and another ...Petitioners
Vs.
Jeet Singh @ Ajit Singh through Lrs. ...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Varun Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate
for the respondents.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)
1. This revision petition has been filed by the holders of decree dated
11.02.2017 in a suit for specific performance of an unregistered sale deed dated
17.12.2009. They challenged the correctness of order dated 02.05.2018, which
read as under:-
"From the pleadings of the parties, following issues are
framed:
1. Whether the DH has got the present decree on false
facts? OPO.
2. Whether the DH has not come to the court with clean
hands?OPO
3. Whether the objections are not maintainable?OPNO
4. Relief.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047943
CR-4305-2018(O&M) 2024:PHHC:047943
No other issue arises or pressed for. To come up on
24.07.2018 for evidence of the objector on filing PF, DM and list
of witnesses within two days."
2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,
relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. The two plaintiffs, namely, Smt. Janak Dulari and Smt. Rachita
Jain filed a suit for specific performance of the unregistered sale deed executed
by Sh. Jeet Singh @ Ajit Singh son of Bhag Singh with a consequential relief
of permanent injunction. In the first round, the suit was decreed, however, in
appeal the matter was remitted back to the trial Court. On 11.2.2017, Sh. Jeet
Singh @ Ajit Singh recorded the following statement:-
"Stated that I do not want to give any evidence in the
present case. I have compromised the matter with the
plaintiff. I am bound to execute the sale deed in favour of
the plaintiff, as per compromise. If case of the plaintiff is
decreed, then I have no objection in the same."
4. Sh. Mohinder Kumar Jain husband of Smt. Janak Dulari accepted
the statement of defendant that he has received the costs from the defendant.
Ultimately, the suit was decreed in terms of statement made by Sh. Jeet Singh
@ Ajit Singh. After passing of the decree, Sh. Jeet Singh @ Ajit Singh died.
The decree holders filed an execution petition in which, the respondent,
namely, Smt. Rani Kaur wife of Jeet Singh @ Ajit Singh filed the reply
submitting that Sh. Jeet Singh @ Ajit Singh never suffered such statement. As
already noticed, the Executing Court has proceeded to frame the issues, which
have already been reproduced.
5. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047943
CR-4305-2018(O&M) 2024:PHHC:047943
with their able assistance perused the paper-book.
6. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the issues
are required to be framed in the execution petition, only if there is a serious
contest between the decree-holder and the judgment debtor on a particular
point in issue. He submits that the issues settled by the Executing Court are not
arising between the parties.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that
Sh. Mohinder Kumar Jain has accepted the statement of the defendant,
although, he was not party. He further submits that Sh.Jeet Singh @ Ajit Singh
has never appeared in the court and someone else impersonated as Jeet Singh
@ Ajit Singh to give statement in the court on 11.02.2017.
8. As per Order 14 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the
court is permitted to settle points in issue, which require adjudication from the
Court. This provision is applicable not only to the suits but also to the
execution petitions. However, before settling the points in issue and calling
upon the parties to lead evidence, the court is required to apply its mind to
identify the issues, which fall within the scope of execution petition. In each
and every case, it is not necessary for the Court to frame issues and called upon
the parties to lead evidence. From what has been contended by the learned
counsel representing the respondent, the only point which needs consideration
is as to whether the plaintiff impersonated Sh. Jeet Singh @ Ajit Singh or not.
However, the Executing Court has not identified the issue on that aspect of the
matter. Moreover, before the court proceeds to identify the issues involved in
the execution petition, a speaking order is required to be passed giving detail
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047943
CR-4305-2018(O&M) 2024:PHHC:047943
reasons to explain the necessity of passing such order. If the parties are called
upon to lead evidence after settling the issues, the decision on executing
petitions would take long time.
9. This Court is not observing that in no case issues can be framed.
However, before settling the issues, the court is required to identify the real and
necessary issues, which require adjudication from the Executing Court.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the impugned order passed by
the Executing Court is set aside with directions to pass fresh order in
accordance with law.
11. The revision petition is allowed.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
08.04.2024 JUDGE
neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
4 of 4
