Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TEJPAL SINGH versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Tejpal Singh v. Central Bank of India & Ors - CR-2501-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 2647 (27 April 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.R. No. 2501 of 2004 ( O&M )

DATE OF DECISION : 03.04.2006

Tejpal Singh

.... PETITIONER

Versus

Central Bank of India and others

..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashok Aneja, Advocate,

for respondent No.1.

* * *

The petitioner, who is brother of Tarlochan Singh, judgment debtor, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 6.10.2003, passed by the Executing Court, whereby his objection regarding auction of the attached land has been dismissed.

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

In this case, a money decree for recovery of Rs. 2,29,050/- was passed against Tarlochan Singh, in a suit filed by respondent No.1 bank.

While obtaining the loan, JD Tarlochan Singh mortgaged 79 knalas 11 marlas of land from the joint khata, which was exclusively in his possession.

In execution of the said money decree, the mortgaged land has been ordered to be sold. The objection of the petitioner is that he is also one of the co- sharers in the mortgaged land. The objection petition has been dismissed by the Executing Court while holding that the attached land is part of the joint khata which comprises of 1492 kanals of land, in which JD Tarlochan Singh has 5/20 share. It is not the case of the petitioner-objector that the attached land i.e. 79 kanals 11 marlas is more than the share of Tarlochan Singh. It has also been found by the Executing Court that Tarlochan Singh was in exclusive possession of the disputed land, when the same was mortgaged with the bank. In view of this factual position, which has not been disputed by counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, in exercise of the superintending power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Dismissed.

April 03, 2006 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )

ndj JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.