Satinder Singh vs Sukhwant Kaur And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 5903 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Satinder Singh vs Sukhwant Kaur And Others on 15 March, 2024

Author: Vikas Suri

Bench: Vikas Suri

                                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037980




                                                         2024:PHHC:037980

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

140                                               CR-1678-2024
                                             Date of Decision: 15.03.2024

Satinder Singh
                                                               ....Petitioner

                                   Versus


Sukhwant Kaur and others
                                                           ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present:    Mr. Robin Singh Hooda, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            ****

VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition under Article 277 of the Constitution

of India has been filed by judgment debtor - Satinder Singh, aggrieved

by order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Ferozepur, whereby the executing court while

disposing of the application filed under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC by the

respondent/decree-holder, for issuance of proclamation of intended sale

of attached land measuring 92 Kanals 19 Marlas, has ordered sale of the

same, which auction is now scheduled for 18.03.2024.

2. The respondent-plaintiff/judgment holders had filed a suit

for decree of recovery of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh) as

compensation/ damages for causing death of Kulwant Singh son of Jagtar

Singh, resident of village Khai Pheme Ki, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.

                              1 of 6

                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037980




CR-1678-2024                              -2-                       2024:PHHC:037980

The said suit was partly decreed vide judgment and decree dated

30.07.2016 and plaintiffs were held entitled for recovery of Rs.15 lakh

from all the defendants in equal share being compensation on account of

murder of Kulwant Singh deceased by the defendants. The above detailed

land has since been attached and is sought to be sold in auction to satisfy

the aforesaid decree dated 30.07.2016.

4. It is submitted that pursuant to the order dated 06.12.2019

the sale did not take place as no bidder came forward at the auction

scheduled for 06.01.2020. The counsel for the decree holders suffered a

statement with regard to the report that nobody is ready to bid and the

execution petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

23.01.2020 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, a fresh execution application was

filed but the same was adjourned on several occasions on account of

administrative instructions passed during the period of covid-19

pandemic. Vide order dated 09.04.2021 (page-50 of the paper-book)

fresh proclamation of the sale was issued. The auction was scheduled for

28.05.2021 but the land in question could not be sold for want of bidders

at the auction on the said date as well as on several occasions thereafter

i.e. 29.10.2021, 14.01.2022, 13.06.2022, 26.10.2022, 25.11.2022,

05.01.2023, 06.04.0203, 15.05.2023, 13.07.2023, 25.08.2023,

10.10.2023, 12.01.2024 and 12.02.2024. Vide order dated 19.02.2024

(Annexure P-6) the auction is now scheduled for 18.03.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-JD submits that the

aforesaid decree for recovery of Rs.15 lakh has yet not attained finality

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037980

CR-1678-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:037980

and challenge to the same is pending consideration before this Court in

Regular Second Appeal. However, there is no denial to the fact that no

stay of operation of the decree in question has been passed by the

appellate Court or of the sale by way of auction by any Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/

judgment debtor, as per the decree in question is liable only to the extent

of his share, being one amongst the six defendants. As per the decree, the

respondent-plaintiffs were held entitled for recovery of Rs.15 lakhs from

all the defendants in equal share being compensation on account of

murder of Kulwant Singh-deceased by the defendants. It is further

submitted that the liability for the said recovery was not joint or several.

One of the defendant-judgment debtors viz., Gurdev Singh has since

died. Nonetheless, in order to save the land in question from going under

the hammer and being sold in distress, at a price much lower than the

actual market value, the petitioner without prejudice to his rights in the

pending appeal (RSA) is ready and willing to deposit the entire decretal

amount along with costs of the sale before the executing Court for

stoppage of sale.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have

perused the material on record with his able assistance.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn notice to the

provisions under Order 21 Rule 69 CPC, which read as thus:

69. Adjournment or stoppage of sale.--(1) The Court may, in its discretion, adjourn any sale hereunder to a specified day and hour, and the officer conducting any such

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037980

CR-1678-2024 -4- 2024:PHHC:037980

sale may in his discretion adjourn the sale, recording his reasons for such adjournment:

Provided that, where the sale is made in, or within the precincts of, the court house, no such adjournment shall be made without the leave of the Court.

(2) Where a sale is adjourned under sub-rule (1) for a longer period than thirty days a fresh proclamation under Rule 67 shall be made, unless the judgment-debtor consents to waive it.

(3) Every sale shall be stopped if, before the lot is knocked down, the debt and costs (including the costs of the sale) are tendered to the officer conducting the sale, or proof is given to his satisfaction that the amount of such debt and costs has been paid into the Court which ordered the sale.

9. Admittedly, the decree in question is for recovery of an

amount of Rs.15 lakh passed against six defendants/judgment debtors;

recoverable form all of them in equal shares. It is contended in the reply

filed to the application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC that the market

value of the land in the area of village Kamaldeen Niazia is about 16/17

lakh per acre, whereas the entire land measuring 92 kanals 19 marlas has

been projected by the decree holders to be Rs.25 lakhs. Despite having

made attempts on numerous occasions earlier to sell the attached land by

way of auction, it has not yielded any fruitful result. The petitioner has

now come forward to satisfy the decree by making deposit of the decretal

amount along with costs of sale, which may be assessed by the executing

Court, though for stoppage of the sale. He claims that the land in

question is jointly held and he is only a co-sharer in the same.

10. A perusal of the afore-noticed provisions would show that

the same are intended to grant an opportunity the judgment debtor, to

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037980

CR-1678-2024 -5- 2024:PHHC:037980

deposit the debt and costs, before the fall of the hammer at the auction, as

a last minute effort for stoppage of the sale. It is evident that the said

provision speaks in favour to avoid sale by way of auction, if the

decreetal amount including costs of the sale are deposited with the Court

that had ordered the sale.

11. In the light of the above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of

this revision petition relegating the petitioner to approach the learned

executing Court by way of an appropriate application under the above

noticed provisions and for depositing the entire decretal amount along

with the costs of the sale, as may be assessed by the said Court, on or

before 18.03.2024. On doing his so, it is expected that the learned

executing Court would take up the said application for consideration

without delay and pass appropriate orders thereupon, in accordance with

law.

12. Keeping in view that the auction is scheduled for

18.03.2024, the land to be auctioned would be at some distance from the

concerned Court and no specific time thereof has been specified in the

proclamation of sale, it may not be pragmatic to furnish proof of making

the deposit as aforesaid to the officer conducting the sale before the lot is

knocked down, accordingly, the auction scheduled for 18.03.2024 be kept

in abeyance till 4.30 pm on that day and would be subject to further

orders as may be passed by the executing Court in that regard. However,

if the petitioner fails to avail of this order by making the aforesaid deposit

with the executing Court on or before 18.03.2024, he shall be further

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037980

CR-1678-2024 -6- 2024:PHHC:037980

liable to payment of costs in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, to be paid to the

respondent/decree holders.

13. The revision petition is disposed of in the terms aforesaid.

                                                  (VIKAS SURI)
March 15, 2024                                       JUDGE
Sangeeta

            Whether reasoned/speaking:              Yes/No
            Whether reportable:                     Yes/No




                                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037980

                              6 of 6