High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Sukhbir Singh & Anr v. Bhushan Kumar & Anr - CR-6007-2005  RD-P&H 332 (24 January 2006)
Civil Revision No.6007 of 2005
Date of Decision: 10.02.2006
Sukhbir Singh and another
Bhushan Kumar and another
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present: Shri M.K.Garg, Advocate for the petitioners JUDGMENT
Vide order, under challenge, objection application of the petitioners, in a pending execution, was dismissed. It is apparent from the records that the predecessor in interest of the respondents filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.2.1977. Suit was decreed. Appeal filed by the judgment debtor was dismissed on 21.5.1982. In his second appeal on 20.1.1983, it was ordered by this Court that the appellant therein, shall not alienate the property, in dispute, till disposal of the appeal. Appeal was admitted and ultimately dismissed on 11.8.2004. Very surprising and in a very clandestine manner petitioners joined hands with the judgment debtor and purchased the property, in dispute, in violation to the order passed by this Court, on Civil Revision No.6007 of 2005
15.7.1997. To execute decree in favour of the respondents, when warrant of possession was issued, the petitioners filed objection application, by stating that he was a bona fide purchaser and further that even prior to the sale in his favour, he was in possession of the property as a tenant. The Court below has dismissed their objections, by observing thus:- "From the perusal of the file, it is clarified that Sh.Balwant Rai filed a Civil Suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract dated 7.2.1977 on 22.11.1979 and the Civil Suit was decreed on 30.7.80. The appeal filed by the J.D. was ordered to be dismissed on 21.5.82. Thereafter, the J.D. filed the regular second appeal in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and on January 20, 1983 learned counsel for the Appellant/ counsel for J.D. stated that property in dispute was not to be alienated till the disposal of the appeal. The regular second appeal filed by the J.D. was ordered to be dismissed on 11.8.2004. Now when the warrants of possession had been issued against the J.D. the objectors have been claiming themselves to be in possession on the basis of the sale deed dated 15.7.1997. The question arises whether the objections filed by the objector are frivolous or vexatious and to delay the proceedings of the case, the answer is in the affirmative. The objectors have been claiming that they were in possession of the property in dispute since 1976 as tenant and thereafter, they purchased the property in 1997. The litigation between the J.D.
and D.H. is pending since 1979 and it cannot be expected that the objectors were not aware that the litigation regarding the disputed property is pending. Moreover, the counsel for the Civil Revision No.6007 of 2005
J.D. gave the undertaking in Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that they would not alienate the property. The objections raised by the objector are clearly to delay the proceedings of the case and to avoid the execution of the warrants of possession. It is a well settled law that the court can dismiss the objections where it considers that the objections have been intended to delay the process of law. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, it is clear that the objectors have been claiming that they purchased the property in dispute from Major Singh J.D. on 15.7.1997."
This Court feels that the opinion arrived at, is perfectly justified. Appellant is a person, who has purchased the property, in violation to the order passed by this Court, as such, he is not entitled to claim any equity in his favour. It appears that an attempt is being made to defeat the rights of the decree holders, by entering into manipulations.
Reliance has been placed upon certain receipts, allegedly executed by the judgment debtor in favour of the appellant, to say that the appellant was a tenant before purchase of property by him. Original receipts were seen in Court and this Court is satisfied that such like receipts can be procured and prepared. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that reliance of counsel for the appellant upon Baljit Singh v. Balkar Singh and others, (2001-2) The Punjab Law Reporter, 315 and Anwarbi v. Pramod D.A.Joshi, (2002-1) Delhi Section 49, is of not help to the petitioners, as facts of those cases were altogether different. No case is made out for interference.
February 10, 2006 ( Jasbir Singh )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.