High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Sonu Sharma & Anr v. Satender Kumar & Anr - CR-945-2006  RD-P&H 532 (3 February 2006)
Civil Revision No.945 of 2006
Date of Decision: 17.02.2006
Sonu Sharma and another
Satender Kumar and another
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present: Shri J.K.Goel, Advocate for the petitioners JUDGMENT
Vide order, under challenge, objection application of the petitioners, in a pending execution application against their father, was dismissed. Executing Court below has noticed that in connivance with each other, the petitioners are making futile attempts to retain the property, regarding which, judgment and decree dated 23.8.1995, against their father, had become final. The Court below has observed thus:- "Having heard arguments and perusing record of the case carefully, I am of the view that objectors do not have any case and it is a complete family affair to resist the decree dated 23.8.95 in favour of DH by resorting to one proceedings or the other. It could not be disputed that present objectors are none else than the sons of sole JD Satinder Kumar. The JD got filed a civil suit against him through his sons prior to the date of execution of agreement to sell dated 2.5.89 and got the same decreed by consent on 29.1.90. During the pendency of said suit, the sole JD executed an agreement to sell dated 2.5.89 in favour of DH and received earnest money. Later on, the sole JD refused to adhere to the terms of agreement to sell dated 2.5.89 and this constrained the DH to approach court for getting suitable relief, which was granted to him by the trial court on 23.8.95. The decision dated 23.8.95 in favour of DH is final. The DH is executing decree dated 23.8.95 in his favour through the process of court and at present, sons of sole JD have come as objectors on the basis of consent judgment and decree dated 29.1.90. Suffice it to observe that judgment and decree dated 29.1.90 in favour of present objectors is a waste paper and the same was a clear design at the hands of sole JD to deny the DH the fruits of decree in the suit for specific performance, which could be passed against him.
Such an attempt must fail. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that objectors cannot have any benefit of judgment and decree dated 29.1.90. Many efforts made by sole JD and his family members to retain the possession of the property in dispute failed before every forum, as is clear from documentary evidence led by DH and noticed
in detail in para 5 of this order. Thus, it is not proved that objectors were owners in possession over the property in dispute on 29.1.90. There may not be any bar but the fact of collusion between sole JD and present objectors is well established on the ground that they stand represented by a single counsel before the court in every proceedings including the present execution application."
Facts of the case clearly indicate that the petitioners and their father have duped the unsuspecting respondent No.1 and after selling the property to him, he is being dragged in litigation unnecessarily for the last more than a decade. No case is made out for interference.
February 17, 2006 ( Jasbir Singh )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.