Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surender Singh vs Krishan Kumar And Another on 7 May, 2024
Author: Archana Puri
Bench: Archana Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062826
1
CR-2015-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.121
CR-2015-2024
Date of Decision: 07.05.2024
SURENDER SINGH
....Petitioner
Versus
KRISHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present:- Mr. Rajinder Singh Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated
08.11.2017 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Executing Court, whereby the
objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and Section 47 read with Section
151 CPC, filed by the petitioner, were dismissed. Further, challenge is to
the order dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure P-7), passed by learned Appellate
Court, whereby the appeal filed, was also dismissed.
As per submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner,
initially, Krishan Kumar had filed a suit for specific performance, on the
basis of an agreement to sell dated 02.03.2006 against Satvir and the said
suit was decided on 21.12.2012 and an alternative relief of refund of money
was granted to Krishan Kumar. However, Krishan Kumar had filed an
appeal on 04.01.2013 and the same was allowed, vide judgment dated
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062826
CR-2015-2024
31.01.2013 and relief of specific performance, on the basis of the aforesaid
agreement, was granted to Krishan Kumar. However, no further appeal was
filed. In the given circumstances, it is evident that there was collussion
between Krishan Kumar and Satvir.
Further, learned counsel submits that during the pendency of the
suit, filed at the instance of Krishan Kumar, as aforesaid, Satvir had sold the
subject property to petitioner-Surender Singh, by way of execution of the
sale deed dated 14.02.2011. On query by the Court, it is stated by learned
counsel that no agreement to sell, prior to the execution of the sale deed
dated 14.02.2011, was executed between the parties. Further, it is submitted
that mutation, on the basis of sale deed, had been executed.
Also, it is submitted that in pursuance of suit filed by Krishan
Kumar against Satvir, as observed aforesaid, having attained finality, an
execution petition was filed and therein, the petitioner-Surender Singh, had
filed objections. However, on query, it is disclosed by learned counsel that
on the basis of acceptance of the appeal on 31.01.2013, in the execution, the
sale deed of the subject property was already executed in favour of Krishan
Kumar on 14.11.2013.
At this stage, on further query put by the Court, as to whether
learned Executing Court was within the power to set aside the sale deed
dated 14.11.2013, which was got executed in due process of law, learned
counsel has submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property
and he had also filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was decreed
vide judgment dated 27.11.2017 and the appeal filed by Krishan Kumar, was
also dismissed.
But anyhow, at this stage, learned counsel submits that he does
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062826
CR-2015-2024
not want to pursue with the present revision petition, which may be
dismissed as withdrawn, as the petitioner shall be seeking appropriate
remedy, vis-a-vis, the sale deed dated 14.11.2023.
In view of the submission, so made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, without prejudice to the rights of the parties to be adjudicated in
any other proceedings, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as
withdrawn.
(ARCHANA PURI)
07.05.2024 JUDGE
Sonu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
