Judgment:
Civil Revision No.1032 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1032 of 2014 Date of Decision:- 11.2.2014 Krishan & Anr. ......Petitioners Versus Ram Bilas & Anr. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.
(Oral) The compendium of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, the suit for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 6.1.1999, filed by Ram Bilas son of Rati Ram, respondent No.1-plaintiff-decree holder (for brevity “the DH”.) against Ishwar Singh son of Masudi respondent No.2- defendant-Judgment debtor (for short “the JD”.) was decreed, by means of judgment and decree dated 24.1.2009 by the trial Court. It is not a matter of dispute that the pointed decree has already attained the finality.
2. Consequently, the DH has filed the execution petition to execute the decree. Petitioners Krishan and Inder ss/o Prabhu Ram (third party objectors) filed the objections petition (Annexure P2) on the ground that as they have subsequently purchased the land, including some portion of land in litigation from the previous owner Sudhir, Indro Devi and others, Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.02.18 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1032 of 2014 2 vide registered sale deed dated 28.4.2011, therefore, the decree cannot be executed against them qua the land purchased by them. The DH refuted the claim of objectors, filed the reply (Annexure P3), stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the objections petition and prayed for its dismissal.
3. Taking into consideration the facts and entire material on record, the executing Court dismissed the objection petition of the petitioners, by virtue of impugned order dated 25.1.2014 (Annexure P4).
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners-objectors have preferred the present petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioners have subsequently purchased the land, including some portion of land in dispute from the previous owner Sudhir Singh, Indro Devi and others, by way of registered sale deed dated 28.4.2011, so, the indicated decree cannot be executed against them qua the land purchased by them, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
7. As is evident from the record that during the pendency of the suit for possession by way of specific performance of the pointed agreement to sell, Ishwar Singh JD had illegally sold the land to one Sudhir Singh s/o Balwan Singh etc. Subsequently, the petitioner-objectors were stated to have further purchased the disputed land from Sudhir Singh and others on 28.4.2011, much after the passing of the decree dated 24.1.2009 in the main Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.02.18 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1032 of 2014 3 suit. In this manner, neither the petitioners nor their vendor Sudhir Singh etc. (subsequent vendees) had any independent right. They would step into the shoes of original JD and are bound by the decree in question.
8. Meaning thereby, the executing Court has correctly dismissed the objections of petitioners, by means of impugned order (Annexure P4), has examined the matter in right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this behalf. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with, in the exercise of superintendence power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners, so, the impugned order (Annexure P4) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
9. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioners-objectors is hereby dismissed as such. Sd/- (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 11.2.2014 AS Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.02.18 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh