BALJIT SINGH Vs. AMRIK SINGH
LAWS(P&H)-2009-3-105
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on March 06,2009

BALJIT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
AMRIK SINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

AMAR SINGH V. PURAN CHAND [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBHOO KHIMJI V. BALOCH ROZE [REFERRED TO]
FIRM GANGA RAM KISHORE CHAND VS. FIRM JAI RAM BHAGAT RAM [REFERRED TO]
UMRAO SINGH VS. NIKKU MAL GUPTA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.)Baljit Singh Judgment debtor has filed this revision petition, challenging the impugned order dated 22.09.2008 (Annexure P-2), passed by the executing Court whereby his objections have been dismissed.
(2.)AS per the averments made in this petition, civil suit No. 141 of 26.03.2003, filed by the respondent for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 6.6.2002 of the suit property detailed as 3 kanal 16 marla being 1/5 share out of 19 kanal comprised in khewat khatoni No. 149/160, Khasra Nos. 44//22/2, 23/2, 48//3 as per jamabandi for the year 1996-97 of village Tunga Heri, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana and a plot measuring 0-11 k.m. being 1/3 share out of 1 kanal 14 marla Khewat No. 1335, Khatoni No. 1382, Khasra No. 531 and Khewat No. 1470, Khatoni No. 1517 Khasra No. 582 and 581/1/1 as per jamabandi for the year 1997-98 of village Barundi, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana was decreed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide her judgment and decree dated 1.2.2007 and the petitioner was directed to execute the sale-deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff-respondent within 3 months on deposit of balance sale consideration.
Plaintiff-respondent/Decree Holder filed execution application, in which notice was issued to the petitioner, who filed his objections vide Annexure P-1, which were dismissed by the executing Court vide impugned order dated 22.09.98 Annexure P-2.

(3.)CHALLENGING the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner had specifically taken objections to the effect that he does not own any other house or land except the subject-matter of the execution and the same can neither be attached nor sold under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. However, while dismissing his objections argument of the petitioner has not been considered in this regard and therefore the impugned order dated 22.09.98 is liable to be set aside.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.