[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar vs Adviser To The Administrator And Others on 2 April, 2026
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
CWP-31375-2019, CWP-31435-2019, CWP-31439-2019,
CWP-31452-2019 and CWP-31467-2019 -1-
228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 02.04.2026
(I) CWP-31375-2019
RAJNEESH SHARMA
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ADVISER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, CHANDIGARH
ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(II) CWP-31435-2019
PAWAN KUMAR
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ADVISER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, CHANDIGARH
ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(III) CWP-31439-2019
HARISH KUMAR
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ADVISER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, CHANDIGARH
ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(IV) CWP-31452-2019
DINESH KUMAR
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ADVISER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, CHANDIGARH
ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.09 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-31375-2019, CWP-31435-2019, CWP-31439-2019,
CWP-31452-2019 and CWP-31467-2019 -2-
(V) CWP-31467-2019
SHAM SUNDER SETHI
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ADVISER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, CHANDIGARH
ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate and
Ms. Shrinkhla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Priyanka Kansal, Additional Standing Counsel and
Mr. Karanvir Singh, Junior Panel Counsel
for respondents No.1, 2 and 4 in CWP-31375-2019,
CWP-31435-2019, CWP-31452-2019 and CWP-31467-2019.
Mr. Ashish Rawal, Additional Standing Counsel
for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 in CWP-31439-2019.
Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.3.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. All the five Civil Writ Petitions, being similar, are taken up
together for final disposal with the consent of learned counsels for the parties.
2. All the Civil Writ Petitions have been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
for quashing the impugned order dated 12.07.2018 (Annexure P-6) and
impugned order dated 24.05.2019 (Annexure P-9), whereby the revision
petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed by respondent No.1.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from
CWP-31375-2019, titled as Rajneesh Sharma versus Adviser to the
Administrator, Chandigarh Administration and others.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-31375-2019, CWP-31435-2019, CWP-31439-2019,
4. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, while
giving the brief facts of the case, submitted that the petitioner had taken a loan
from respondent No.3-The Chandigarh State Federation of Cooperative House
Building Societies Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Housefed') to the tune of
about Rs.5 lakhs and thereafter, he could not return the amount in time and
therefore, proceedings were initiated by respondent No.3-Housefed against him
under the provisions of Section 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies
Act, 1961, as applicable to U.T., Chandigarh. He further submitted that at the
time of the aforesaid proceedings before the Assistant Registrar/Arbitrator,
Cooperative Societies, U.T., Chandigarh, the petitioner stated that he had
already deposited an amount of Rs.92,135/- and he cannot continue with the
repayment of monthly installments due to his financial/domestic circumstances
and recovery of the total outstanding amount including interest may be made
after selling the property mortgaged in favour of respondent No.3-Housefed
against the loan taken by him because he is not in a position to repay the
outstanding installments and the balance amount of loan and in view of the
aforesaid statement made by the petitioner before the Assistant
Registrar/Arbitrator, Cooperative Societies, U.T., Chandigarh, it was directed
vide Annexure P-2 dated 24.05.2005 to respondent No.3-Housefed to recover
the total amount outstanding of Rs.11,18,088.15/-, which includes
Rs.4,79,061.75/- as principal, Rs.2,88,303.80/- as interest, Rs.1,27,105/- as
penal interest and Rs.2,23,617.60/- as costs. He further submitted that the
aforesaid total outstanding amount was stated by respondent No.3-Housefed
before the Assistant Registrar/Arbitrator, Cooperative Societies, U.T.,
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-31375-2019, CWP-31435-2019, CWP-31439-2019,
Chandigarh, which included not only interest but also penal interest and costs
but the aforesaid amount could always have been recovered from the petitioner
by way of selling the mortgaged property and this was rather so reflected in the
last paragraph of the aforesaid order dated 24.05.2005 that the outstanding
amount is to be recovered by selling the property of the petitioner, which was
mortgaged in favour of respondent No.3-Housefed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thereafter,
respondent No.3-Housefed kept silent for about 10 years and did not sell the
property and on the other hand, the petitioner could not himself have sold the
property because there was a direction from the Assistant Registrar/Arbitrator,
Cooperative Societies, U.T., Chandigarh to respondent No.3-Housefed to sell
the property and in this way, nothing happened for about 10 years but it was in
the year 2015 that respondent No.3-Housefed filed an execution application
vide Annexure P-3 and the learned Executing Court, who was the Additional
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T., Chandigarh, vide impugned order dated
12.07.2018 (Annexure P-6), directed the Sale Officer i.e. Naib Tehsildar to sell
the mortgaged property and hand over the sale consideration to the decree-
holder, which will transfer the excess amount in the account of the petitioner,
who was the judgment-debtor. However, in addition to the aforesaid order, the
Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T., Chandigarh, exercising the
powers of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T., Chandigarh as an
Executing Court also directed that respondent No.3-Housefed/decree-holder
was granted liberty to file a separate application to claim interest from the
petitioner/judgment-debtor, as per law.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-31375-2019, CWP-31435-2019, CWP-31439-2019,
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners in
all the cases are aggrieved by the portion of the aforesaid order which granted
liberty to respondent No.3-Housefed to claim interest from them, which was not
permissible under the law as the learned Executing Court could not have
travelled beyond the award passed vide Annexure P-2 because in the award, the
total amount was comprehensive which included not only the principal amount
but also interest, penal interest and costs and no future interest was granted but
it was because of the default of respondent No.3-Housefed that the matter
remained pending for about 10 years and thereafter, liberty was granted to
respondent No.3-Housefed by the learned Executing Court and that portion of
the order, whereby liberty was granted is liable to be set aside being in violation
of law as the learned Executing Court has travelled beyond the award.
7. Mr. Sharma submitted that it was in pursuance of the aforesaid
liberty granted vide Annexure P-6 that respondent No.3-Society exploited the
said liberty and filed application for award of future interest @ 19.50% vide
Annexure P-7, which is still pending. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a
revision petition before the Adviser to the Administrator, Chandigarh
Administration, U.T., Chandigarh, who dismissed the same vide impugned
order dated 24.05.2019 (Annexure P-9) by observing that the Additional
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T., Chandigarh has not passed any order
regarding future interest and has granted only the aforesaid liberty to respondent
No.3-Housefed as per law.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although only
liberty was granted to respondent No.3-Housefed to file a separate application
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-31375-2019, CWP-31435-2019, CWP-31439-2019,
to claim interest but the fact remains that the learned Executing Court has
travelled beyond the award itself and no such liberty could have been granted
and in this way, further litigation has arisen and it was the default of respondent
No.3-Housefed that the property of the petitioner was not sold in the year 2005
and after about 10 years, such an execution application was filed in which
liberty was granted and therefore, to the aforesaid extent of grant of such
liberty, the impugned order may be set aside.
9. On the other hand, Ms. Priyanka Kansal, learned Additional
Standing Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh in CWP-31375-2019, CWP-31435-
2019, CWP-31452-2019 and CWP-31467-2019, Mr. Ashish Rawal, learned
Additional Standing Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh in CWP-31439-2019 and
Mr. Raj Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Housefed have jointly
submitted that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as only liberty has been
granted to file a separate application to claim interest as per law but there is no
direction that future interest is to be awarded and therefore, the present petitions
are misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
11. The broad facts of the present cases are not in dispute. The only
point for consideration is whether the learned Executing Court could have even
granted liberty to respondent No.3-Housefed to file an application seeking
future interest, in pursuance of which respondent No.3-Housefed filed an
application for grant of interest @ 19.50% vide Annexure P-7. During the
arbitration proceedings under Section 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative
Societies Act, 1961, as applicable to U.T., Chandigarh, an award was to be
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-31375-2019, CWP-31435-2019, CWP-31439-2019,
passed by the Assistant Registrar/Arbitrator, Cooperative Societies, U.T.,
Chandigarh and the petitioner who was the borrower had rather submitted
before the Assistant Registrar/Arbitrator, Cooperative Societies, U.T.,
Chandigarh that he did not have any money and that his property, which was
already mortgaged to respondent No.3-Housefed can be sold and
proceeds thereafter be given to him. The outstanding amounts were also
ascertained before the Assistant Registrar/Arbitrator, Cooperative
Societies, U.T., Chandigarh to the extent of Rs.11,18,088.15/-, which included
Rs.4,79,061.75/- as principal, Rs.2,88,303.80/- as interest, Rs.1,27,105/- as
penal interest and Rs.2,23,617.60/- as costs in CWP-31375-2019, to
the extent of Rs.15,17,493.05/-, which included Rs.6,46,139.70/- as
principal, Rs.4,26,670.45/- as interest, Rs.1,45,184.40/- as penal interest
and Rs.3,03,498.50/- as costs in CWP-31435-2019, to the extent of
Rs.16,33,026.10/-, which included Rs.6,95,863.45/- as principal,
Rs.4,54,445.45/- as interest, Rs.1,56,112/- as penal interest and Rs.3,26,605.20/-
as costs in CWP-31439-2019, to the extent of Rs.16,33,026.10/-,
which included Rs.6,95,863.45/- as principal, Rs.4,54,445.45/- as interest,
Rs.1,56,112/- as penal interest and Rs.3,26,605.20/- as costs in CWP-31452-
2019 and to the extent of Rs.11,30,300.15/-, which included Rs.4,81,652.55/- as
principal, Rs.2,95,482.60/- as interest, Rs.1,27,105/- as penal interest and
Rs.2,26,060/- as costs in CWP-31467-2019. There was no provision for any
order with regard to the grant of future interest. Thereafter, respondent No.3-
Housefed remained silent for about 10 years. During this period, the petitioner
himself could not have sold the property, which was mortgaged to respondent
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-31375-2019, CWP-31435-2019, CWP-31439-2019,
No.3-Housefed because the order passed by the Assistant Registrar/Arbitrator,
Cooperative Societies, U.T., Chandigarh had directed respondent No.3-
Housefed to sell the property of the petitioner for recovery of the outstanding
amount and in this way, nothing happened for about 10 years and after this
period, respondent No.3-Housefed filed an application for execution, in which
the learned Executing Court again directed respondent No.3-Housefed to
recover the amount by selling the property but at the same time granted liberty
to file a separate application to claim interest as per law, which appears to be an
interest which was not included in the award. In this way, the learned Executing
Court vide Annexure P-6 has clearly travelled beyond the award itself.
12. It was argued by the learned counsels for the respondents that the
learned Executing Court, who was the Additional Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, U.T., Chandigarh, has only granted liberty to file a separate
application as per law and therefore, the present petitions are misconceived,
whereas the argument raised by the learned counsels for the respondents itself is
misconceived. Since the learned Executing Court could not have travelled
beyond the award, there was no occasion for the learned Executing Court to
have even granted such liberty, which has actually perpetuated the litigation and
according to the learned counsels for the parties, such an application is still
pending in all the cases. Had it been a case that the petitioner was at fault and
there was some contribution to be made by the petitioner for the purpose of
selling the property, then the situation would have been different but as per the
order passed by the Assistant Registrar/Arbitrator, Cooperative Societies, U.T.,
Chandigarh, the mortgaged property was to be sold by respondent No.3-
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-31375-2019, CWP-31435-2019, CWP-31439-2019,
Housefed, which did not take any action for about 10 years and after remaining
silent for about 10 years, when it filed the execution application, then such
liberty was granted by the learned Executing Court, which is purely contrary to
law and not permissible.
13. This Court is of the considered view that such a liberty granted by
the learned Executing Court vide impugned order dated 12.07.2018 (Annexure
P-6) is not sustainable and therefore, that portion of the order is liable to be set
aside. As a consequence of the same, the order dated 24.05.2019 (Annexure
P-9) passed by the Adviser to the Administrator, Chandigarh Administration,
U.T., Chandigarh, is also liable to be set aside.
14. Consequently, all the Civil Writ Petitions are allowed. The
impugned order dated 24.05.2019 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Adviser to the
Administrator, Chandigarh Administration, U.T., Chandigarh, in all the
petitions, is hereby set aside. However, the impugned order dated 12.07.2018
(Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T.,
Chandigarh, in all the cases, is set aside to a limited extent, whereby liberty has
been granted to respondent No.3-Housefed to file a separate application to
claim interest from the petitioners as per law.
15. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected
cases.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
02.04.2026 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment.
