Paramjit Kaur vs Ved Parkash And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 10052 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Paramjit Kaur vs Ved Parkash And Others on 9 May, 2024

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067180


CR-7027-2023
        2023 (O&M)                                                                 1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

    125                                            CR-7027-2023 (O&M)
                                                   Decided on: 09.05.2024

    PARAMJIT KAUR                                                 ...Petitioner
                              Versus

    VED PARKASH AND ORS                                           ...Respondents

    CORAM:       HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RITU TAGORE

    Present:      Mr. Prashant Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

                 Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.

                 None for respondent No.3.

                               ****

RITU TAGORE, TAGORE J.

1. Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocate, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of

respondents No.1and2, same is taken on record, subject to just exceptions.

None on behalf of respondent No.3, despite served through his counsel,

representing him before the learned trial Court.

2. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 07.10.2023

(Annexure P-10) P 10) passed by learned Executing Court Court,, Rajpura in Execution

Petition No.47 47 dated 28.10.2016 (I.D.No. EXE EXE-126 of 2016) titled as 'Ved

Parkash Vs. Tarlochan Singh'.

3. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is legally wedded wife of

respondent No.3.

No.3 She filed a suit (Annexure P P-1)

1) for grant of maintenance

allowance by way of creating a charge over House No.643 as well as two shops

constructed in the house, situated at Navyog Colony, Kalka Road, Old Rajpur,

Tehsil Rajpura as detailed in the head note of the plaint against respondent

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067180

CR-7027-2023

No.3. Vide order 03.01.2020 (Annexure P-2),

2), learned Additional Principal

Judge, Family Court Court created a charge upon the house in favour of the

petitioner.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that respondents 1 and 2 in

collusion with each other, got a civil suit filed for possession by way of

agreement to sell against respondent No.3 and the said suit was decreed in

favour of respondents No.1 and 2 vide judgment and decree dated 01.07.2016

(Annexure P--3).

5. Addressing further, learned earned counsel stated that despite cre creation ation of

charge regarding the house bearing No.643, as detailed in the plaint (Annexure

P-1), the respondents No.1 and 2 in collusion with respondent No.3 got filed an

execution petition for implementation of the decree dated 01.07.2016

(Annexure P--3), and got the sale deed executed in their favour. The learned

counsel stated tated that respondents No.1 and 2 were impleaded as defendants in

the civil suit filed by the petitioner, wherein, she challenged the judgment and

decree dated 01.07.2016 (Annexure P-3) P 3) and sale deed bearing document

No.2019-20/9/ /9/1/4945 4945 dated 12.03.2020 executed in favour of respondents No.2

and 3 on the basis of judgment and decree dated 01.07.2016 with consequential

relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents and their agent agentss etc.

from illegally and unlawfully dispossessing the petitioner from the house in

dispute.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner filed objections

in the execution filed by the respondent Ved Parkash Parkash. On hearing the parties,

learned Executing Court, vide order dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure P-6) partly

allowed the objections of the petitioner and stayed the execution proceedings

qua the house bearing No.B-1/632 No.B alone and not against the shops built on the

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067180

CR-7027-2023

part of the house. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, th thee petitioner filed an

appeal, which is pending adjudication before the learned Appellate Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the application

(Annexure P--7) of the petitioner, vide order dated 07.10.2023 (Annexure P P-10)

10)

learned Executing xecuting court reviewed its own order and issued warrants of

possession qua the house as well as shops. It is stated that learned Executing

Court was not competent to recall/review /review its own order and further without any

basis, especially when the matter is subjudiced before the learned Appellate

Court against the order dated 29.05.2023 and before the learned Family Court,

that created the charge over the house in question for the maintenance of the

petitioner. It is urged that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable in the

eyes of law and should be set aside.

8. Contrary to it, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2

defended and supported the impugned order (Annexure P P-10),

10), stating that

respondents spondents No.1 and 2 are lawful owners of the suit property i.

i.e. e. a house,

having shops built on o it. The suit filed by the respondents was decreed in their

favor prior to the filing of the suit (Annexure P P-1)

1) by the petitioner. The

learned counsel stated that that the present suit has been filed by the petitioner in

collusive with respondent No.3, .3, the husband of the petitioner, after he lost legal

battles against the respondents No.1 and 2. The learned counsel stated that

petitioner has no right or title or interest est in the house and the shops built in the

house.. It is stated that there is no infirmity in the order. The revision should be

dismissed being meritless.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the partie partiess and have gone the

paper book with their valuable assistance.

10. It is a matter of record that respondent No.1 and 2 obtained a

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067180

CR-7027-2023

decree of specific performance vide judgment and decree dated 01.07.2016

(Annexure P--3)

3) against respondent No.3, the husband of the petitioner. It is

also a matter of record that sale deed was executed on 12.03.2020 in favour of

respondent No. 1 and 2 on the basis of judgment and decree dated 01.07.2016 01.07.2016.

11. It is suffice to say that petitioner initially filed a sui suitt for maintenance

against respondent No.3 on 31.03.2018 and learned Family Court created a

charge over the suit property vide order dated 03.01.2020 (Annexure P P-2)

2) qua

the house in dispute in favour of the petitioner. It is also lso an undisputed fact that

an Execution xecution Petition etition for implementation of judgment and decree dated

01.07.2016 (Annexure P-3) P 3) was filed on 28.10.2016. The petitioner filed

objections (Annexure P-4) P in the said Execution xecution Petition and vide order dated

29.05.2023 (Annexure P-6) P execution qua the house was stayed. Thereafter, an

application (Annexure P-7) P 7) was moved by the petitioner for staying further

proceedings in the execution regarding the shops as well as recall of the order

dated 27.07.2023 vide which warrants of possession of the shops were issued.

On the said application, the learned Executing Court passed an order dated

07.10.2023 (Annexure P-10) P 10) thereby recalling its previous order and issu issued ed

warrants of possession for both, shops and the hous house.

12. It is a matter of record that respondent No. 1 and 2 were also

impleaded as parties/respondents parties in the civil su suit it filed by the petitioner, which

is pending for filing written statement by the respondents No.1 and 2 and

appeal is also pending pending before the learned Appellate Court against the order

dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure P-6).

P

13. The learned counsels for the parties could not refute the factual

position as detailed above. In the face of above factual matrix, to the

considered opinion of this Court, Court, learned Executing Court erred in issuing the

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067180

CR-7027-2023

warrants of possession qua house in question as well shops, by recalling its

earlier order, when the matter regarding suit property is admittedly pending

adjudication before the Courts concerned.

concerned. The learned Executing Court by

passing the impugned order reviewed its own order without any basis which is

not permissible under the law and committed jurisdictional error.

14. For the reasons stated above, the R Revision is allowed in termss that

order dated 07.10.2023 (Annexure P-10)

10) passed by learned Executing Court, is

set aside with directions to the learned Appellate Court to decide the objections

qua the shops and Family Court to decide the matter qua the house

expeditiously. The respondents may move an appropriate application before the

Courts concerned for the early early decision or for any other relief as available to

them.

15. Needless to mention, mention the aforesaid expression is confined purely for the

issue in hand in this revision and has no bearing on the merits of the matter

pending before the concerned Courts.

Courts

16. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.

(RITU TAGORE) JUDGE 09.05.2024 smriti

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

5 of 5