[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Davinder Singh vs Uttam Singh And Another on 8 December, 2025
CR-
CR-8751-
8751-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-
CR-8751-
8751-2025
2025 (O&M)
Reserved on : 29.11.2025
.11.2025
Pronounced on : 08.12.2025
Davinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Uttam Singh and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present: Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J.
1. Prayer in the present Revision Petition filed under Article
227 of the Constitution, inter alia, is for setting aside the order dated
09.10.2024 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.
Division), Kaithal, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner were
dismissed.
2. As per the brief facts on record, the respondent-
plaintiff/decree holder filed a suit for possession by way of specific
performance of agreement to sell. The said suit was partly decreed and
the petitioner-defendant was ordered to return the money along with
interest. The petitioner-defendant-Judgment Debtor (JD) preferred an
appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 25.01.2016, which
was rejected vide order dated 09.10.2019. The decree holder preferred
an execution petition, wherein the petitioner-JD filed objection petition
(Annexure P-2) contending that the petitioner-JD is a very poor person;
his two daughters are studying; and his wife is bed-ridden. He does not
hold any immoveable property. His old-aged parents are also
dependent upon the petitioner. The said objections were dismissed by
1 of 4
CR-
CR-8751-
8751-2025
the Executing Court by passing the impugned order with the following
observations:-
"5. Through these objections, the objector has sought dismissal
of execution petition on the ground that he has no means to pay the
decretal amount. Admittedly, suit for possession by way of specific
performance of agreement to sell dated 29.09.2011 was filed by the
plaintiff/decree-holder, which was partly decreed with costs against
JD No.2 only by the court of Sh. Sumit Garg, the then learned Addl.
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri vide judgment and decree
dated 25.01.2016 with direction to JD No.2 to pay amount in sum of
Rs.5,54,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of filing of the suit till actual payment thereof, but JD No.2
has not made single penny to the decree-holder. JD No.2 has alleged
himself to be poor person and having no movable and immovable
property in his name and prayed for waiving off the decretal
amount, but the objections raised by the JD is not sustainable as
there is a decree dated 25.01.2016 against him and he can not escape
from the payment of decretal amount."
3. After the dismissal of the aforesaid objections filed by the
petitioner, notice was issued to the petitioner-JD as to why he should
not be sent to jail. The petitioner-defendant did not file any written
reply, but verbally made submissions, which were recorded and
considered by the Executing Court while passing the order dated
30.09.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the
petitioner does not have any means to pay, as such sending him to jail
would not serve any purpose. Even the petitioner is suffering from
various medical ailments.
5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted a copy of the judgment and decree dated
25.01.2016, passed by the trial Court-Addl. Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, which is taken on record.
2 of 4
CR-
CR-8751-
8751-2025
6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused
the paper-book.
7. The Executing Court had issued warrants of arrest against
the petitioner for non-compliance of the money decree after issuing
proper notice and hearing the petitioner-JD. While passing the said
order, the following observations were recorded:-
"4. The present execution petition has been filed by the decree-
holder for executing money decree dated 25.01.2016 passed against
JD No.2. The objections filed by JD No.2 has already been
dismissed by this court vide order dated 09.10.2024. There is
outstanding amount of Rs.5,54,000/- against JD No.2 but he has not
paid even a single penny. However, JD has placed on record
medical record of surgery of Fistulectomy done under SA on
20.03.2025 and was under treatment, but he has neither submitted
any bills, nor placed on record his property statement, etc. For his
treatment he has approached to the private hospital instead of
government hospital, where the expenses of treatment are on higher
side. He has not called any person on his behalf, who can state in
the court that he being relative or friend known to the JD and JD is
unable to make payment of decretal amount. Merely relying upon
the authorities will not aid to the JD when he has not placed on
record any bill of payment of medical expenses or any other
document that he is not in condition to pay the decretal amount."
8. A perusal of the Civil Court decree reveals that the
respondent had filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell
dated 29.09.2011, executed by the petitioner as alleged attorney of his
father-Gian Singh, owner of the house in question for a total sale
consideration of Rs.5,54,000/-. Both the father and the son who were
defendants in the civil suit, filed a joint written statement admitting the
ownership of the property as that of the father, however, took a plea
that the petitioner-son was no longer the General Power of Attorney
(GPA) holder of the father since the GPA stood cancelled vide
3 of 4
CR-
CR-8751-
8751-2025
registered cancellation deed dated 01.09.2011, i.e. prior to the
execution of the agreement to sell dated 29.09.2011. It is also noticed
that the agreement to sell executed by the petitioner was attested by the
Notary Public on 04.10.2011, as pleaded by the petitioner in his suit.
As such, the suit was allowed, and the defendants were directed to
refund the amount along with interest. The trial Court observed that the
General Power of Attorney executed by the father of petitioner stood
already cancelled at the time when agreement to sell was executed, as
such, the decree for recovery was passed and the relief for specific
performance was not granted.
9. No doubt, the petitioner has alleged that he is suffering
from medical ailments and he has no money to satisfy the decree,
however, considering the fact that the petitioner has misrepresented the
decree-holder and took money by executing an agreement to sell on the
basis of a GPA, which already stood cancelled by the executant who is
not an alien, but father of the petitioner; in such circumstances, the
equity is not in favour of the petitioner and no interference is called for
in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court.
10. As such, present petition has no merits and is accordingly
dismissed.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
08.12.2025
08.12.2025 [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN]
atulsethi JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
4 of 4
