Baldev Singh And Ors vs Kashmir Singh And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 5127 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Baldev Singh And Ors vs Kashmir Singh And Anr on 6 March, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032604




                                               2024:PHHC:032604
122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

                                         ESA-61-2019 (O&M)
                                         Date of decision: 06.03.2024
Baldev Singh and others
                                                ....Appellants

             Versus

Kashmir Singh (deceased) through LRs and another

                                               ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:-    Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate for the appellants

             Mr. G.S.Jaswal, Advocate for respondent no.1

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

1. This is execution second appeal filed by third party

objector. His objection petition was dismissed by the Executing Court,

which in appeal, has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The

appellants are heirs of late Sh.Natha Singh. Sh.Natha Singh alongwith

Sh.Baldev Singh and Sh.Joginder Singh purchased the suit land on

30.05.2006 i.e during the pendency of the suit for possession of the

property by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell.

During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application

under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for their

impleadment in the suit, which was dismissed. It is evident that the

petitioners are claiming the property on basis of the sale deed, which

was executed during the pendency of the previous suit filed by the

decree-holder. Hence, the sale in favour of the appellants is subservient

to the decision of the suit.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032604

ESA-61-2019 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:032604

2. Learned counsel representing the appellants submits that the

agreement to sell in favour of the decree-holder was executed on

01.12.2004 and the sale deed was to be executed on 30.05.2005. He

submits that the suit for specific performance was filed by the decree-

holder only on 12.01.2006.

3. This Court has considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel representing the parties.

4. It has been correctly found by the trial court, which in first

and second appeal has been affirmed, that the decree-holders were

always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The

decree-holders sent a notice to the judgment debtor on 12.12.2005 and

thereafter, filed the suit on 12.01.2006. Admittedly, the suit was filed

after a period of 6 months from the date the sale deed was executed.

5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere

is made out.

6. Hence, dismissed.

7. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

06.03.2024                                      (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                                 JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :         Yes/No
Whether reportable :                Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032604

2 of 2