Arjan Singh Through Lrs And Ors vs Sant Kumar And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1136 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Arjan Singh Through Lrs And Ors vs Sant Kumar And Ors on 20 January, 2025

Author: Vikas Bahl

Bench: Vikas Bahl

                                Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008043




CR-7384-2024                            1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH
                      ***

                                               CR-7384-2024
                                               Date of decision : 20.01.2025

Arjan Singh (deceased) through his LRs

                                                     ... Petitioner

                   Versus

Sant Kumar and others

                                                     ... Respondents

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:    Mr.Mandeep K. Sajjan, Advocate
            for the petitioner (through V.C.).

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India praying for quashing of order dated 21.09.2024

(Annexure P-9) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Chandigarh, vide which

the objections filed by the petitioners have been disallowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the

present case, respondent no.1 had filed a suit for possession by way of

specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.04.2004 with respect to

the house no.3526, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh and in the said suit,

compromise had been entered into and accordingly, the same was disposed

of by granting the alternate relief to respondent no.1 for recovery of

Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. along with advalorem court

fee of Rs.34,800/-. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs.85,000/- was

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008043

to be deducted from the same and the balance amount was to be paid. It is

submitted that subsequent to the passing of the said decree dated

15.11.2010, the petitioner had paid the entire amount and regarding the

same, a receipt dated 05.09.2014 had been issued by respondent no.1, as per

which, the entire amount had been paid. It is submitted that in spite of the

same, respondent no.1 has filed an execution application and is pursuing the

same and that the petitioner had filed objections, which have been dismissed

vide order dated 21.09.2024, which order is illegal and deserves to be set

aside and the objections filed by the present petitioner deserve to be allowed

as the petitioner has already paid the decretal amount.

3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order dated

21.09.2024 is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the

revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons

stated hereinafter.

4. It is not in dispute that respondent no.1-plaintiff-decree holder

had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement

to sell dated 15.04.2004 with respect to house no.3526, Sector 35-D,

Chandigarh, measuring 169 square yards and during the pendency of the

case, the matter was compromised and separate statements were recorded

and the suit was decreed with respect to alternate relief of recovery of

Rs.3,50,000/-. The relevant portion of the decree sheet is reproduced

hereinbelow:-

"PLAINT PRESENTED ON 18.4.2007

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008043

This suit is coming before the undersigned (Rajeev Kumar PCS) Civil Judge Junior Division Chandigarh, for final disposal in the presence of Mr. Vinay Bhandari, Advocate, Counsel for the plaintiff & Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal, Advocate, Counsel for the defendant.

It is hereby ordered that the plaintiff has received Rs.85,000/-out of settled amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. Balance amount is still to be paid by the defendant. Therefore, in view of this out of court settlement arrived in between the parties, the relief for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.4.2004 in respect of house no.3526, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh measuring 169 sq.yds. has become infructuous and that relief is hereby declined. However, alternative relief for the recovery of Rs.3,50,000/-along with interest @ 12% p.a. is hereby allowed to the plaintiff with costs and advelorem court fee amounting to Rs.34,800/-and other costs and a decree for recovery is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants accordingly. The amount of interest shall be kept on charging on the defendant till he makes the entire payment. It is clarified here that the amount of Rs.85,000/-which the defendant has paid to the plaintiff till 14.8.2010 is liable to be adjusted towards the total amount. Accordingly, the present suit stands disposed off with allowing the alternative relief to the plaintiff for recovery of the amount."

A perusal of the above would show that an alternative relief for

recovery of Rs.3,50,000/- was granted to the respondent no.1-plaintiff along

with 12% per annum interest and in addition to the said amount, Rs.34,800/-

was also granted, which was stated to be the advalorem court fee and an

amount of Rs.85,000/- was to be adjusted from the total amount.

Respondent no.1-plaintiff had filed an execution petition and in the said 3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008043

execution, the petitioner-judgment debtor had filed objections. The said

objections were dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2024 and the case was

adjourned to 08.10.2024 by giving one last opportunity to the petitioner

(LRs of the judgment debtor) to make the requisite payment failing which

the Executing Court would have been constrained to pursue the execution

proceedings further. The orders passed subsequent to 21.09.2024 have not

been annexed along with the present petition.

5. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the entire amount has been paid by the petitioner and for

the said purpose, sole reliance has been placed upon the receipt dated

05.09.2014. The relevant portion of the receipt is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"I Sant Kumar S/o Shri Barkat Ram received of Rs. One Lac (Rs.1,00,000/-) from Arjan Singh on dated 5.9.2014. I had already received Rs. Two Lacs Thirty Five thousand only. Now nothing due against Arjan Singh. I hand over the receipt to Arjan Singh."

6. The Executing Court in the order dated 21.09.2024 had

observed that only the photo copy of the said receipt had been produced in

spite of the fact that the same had been denied by the decreed holder and

that the onus was on the petitioner / objecter / LRs of the judgment debtor to

prove the said receipt in accordance with law, moreso, since there was a

decree passed in favour of respondent no.1-plaintiff which had to be

satisfied. It was further observed that there was nothing to show as to where

the original receipt was and only a photocopy of the same had been

produced which was inadmissible in law and no efforts had been made for

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008043

seeking permission of the Court for producing on record the photocopy of

the said receipt in secondary evidence by asserting either loss of the

document or by stating about the custody of the said document. It is not

disputed before this Court that photocopy of the said document was

produced and no application for secondary evidence was filed so as to prove

the existence or loss of the said document. The said receipt has been denied

by the respondent-decree holder in the Executing Court. No law has been

cited before this Court to show that in such circumstances the said receipt,

of which only the photocopy is produced, is admissible in evidence. Thus,

the Executing Court had rightly rejected the said receipt. Additionally, it

would be relevant to mention that a perusal of the receipt would show that it

had been stated that earlier an amount of Rs.2,35,000/- had been paid.

However, no date with respect to the said payment or any prima-facie proof,

much less, a written receipt has either been referred to or produced on

behalf of the petitioner. After passing of the order dated 21.09.2024,

proceedings for recovery are pending and the present petition has been filed

without bringing on record the said subsequent proceedings.

7. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the

impugned order dated 21.09.2024 deserves to be upheld and the present

petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

(VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE January 20, 2025.

Davinder Kumar

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

                                    5 of 5