Skip to content


Nettar Parkash Mehta Vs. Babu Ram and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Nettar Parkash Mehta

Respondent

Babu Ram and Others

Excerpt:


.....the order dated 25.11.2011 passed by learned civil judge (jr. divn.).yamuna nagar (annexure p- 5) whereby application for execution of decree under order 21 rule 32 of the code of civil procedure ( in short “the cpc”.) has been allowed and the objections filed by respondents no.3, 4 and petitioner have been kumar parveen 2013.09.11 15:48 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh cr no.806 of 2012 2 dismissed. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. admittedly, respondents no.1 and 2 are the decree holders.plaintiffs and the present petition is purchaser of the disputed land from respondent no.3-jaswinder singh. the petitioner would thus step into the shoes of judgment debtors.since the petitioner has purchased the land during the pendency of suit, in this eventuality, the principle of lis pendens applies as pendency of suit itself operate as constructive notice and he is bound by the judgment and decree in view of the settled proposition of law that once the decree has become final, the same can be executed and enforced. since the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of judgment debtors and the land was.....

Judgment:


CR No.806 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.806 of 2012 Date of Decision:10.09.2013.

Nettar Parkash Mehta ...Petitioner Versus Babu Ram and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Present: Mr.Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

**** PARAMJEET SINGH, J.

(Oral) Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.11.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.

Divn.).Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P- 5) whereby application for execution of decree under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( in short “the CPC”.) has been allowed and the objections filed by respondents no.3, 4 and petitioner have been Kumar Parveen 2013.09.11 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.806 of 2012 2 dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admittedly, respondents no.1 and 2 are the decree holdeRs.plaintiffs and the present petition is purchaser of the disputed land from respondent no.3-Jaswinder Singh.

The petitioner would thus step into the shoes of judgment debtORS.Since the petitioner has purchased the land during the pendency of suit, in this eventuality, the principle of lis pendens applies as pendency of suit itself operate as constructive notice and he is bound by the judgment and decree in view of the settled proposition of law that once the decree has become final, the same can be executed and enforced.

Since the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of judgment debtors and the land was purchased during pendency of suit, therefore, objections raised by the petitioner have rightly been dismissed.

In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure P-5).Dismissed.

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge 10th September, 2013 parveen kumar Kumar Parveen 2013.09.11 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //