Punjab-Haryana High Court

Raseed vs Mamni on 6 May, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062335



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
128                                                          2024:PHHC:062335

                                                   CR-2584-2021
                                                   Date of decision: 06.05.2024

RASEED                                                ..Petitioner
                                       Versus
MAMNI                                                 ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:     Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

1. Despite receipt of notice, the respondent remains unrepresented.

2. The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor. In a suit for

possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell,

judgment and decree was passed on 28.07.2011, in favour of respondent. It

was directed that the decree holder will pay the balance sale consideration

within a period of one month. In fact, the suit property was mortgaged for

Rs.33,000/-. In execution petition, the decree holder deposited Rs.21,000/-

on 25.08.2011. The petitioner filed objection petition claiming that the

decree holder was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

The Executing Court has dismissed the objection petition.

3. At this stage, the learned counsel representing the petitioner

submits that the decree holder is required to pay an additional amount of

Rs.33,000/-, which is the amount of mortgage money.

4. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned

counsel representing the petitioner.

5. Before the Executing Court, the petitioner has prayed for

dismissal of the execution petition on the ground that the decree holder was

not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062335

2024:PHHC:062335

6. The learned counsel representing the petitioner has failed to

point out any error in the aforesaid finding of the Executing Court. However,

it appears that the petitioner produced a copy of the mutation dated

25.07.2006, evidencing redemption of mortgage.

7. In these circumstances, the revision petition is disposed of with

liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Executing Court to

prove that he has already redeemed the mortgage, therefore, he is entitled to

the amount of mortgage money.

8. If such application is filed, the same shall be disposed of within

a period of two months.

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

disposed of.

May 06th, 2024                                         (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay                                                          JUDGE

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




                                        2 of 2