Parveen Rani v. Sanjeev Kumar and Another

Order IX Rule 1 cannot be gone i Conclusion

12.

In l considered view wholly untenabl Fir San com bou Sec It is sit pen obj Th pet ent, the proper course was to in o such suit has been filed till dat e plea of possession and impr a valid decree for specific perfo may be considered in independ n of a decree. e plea of improper service of su That issue is already sub judice 13 CPC. The Executing Court ri into at the stage of execution. light of the above and on the foll w that the objections filed by pe le. rstly, the decree dated 24.04. njeev Kumar has not been stay mpetent court. In absence of su und to execute the decree. condly, the objections raised .2 virtually amount to challengi s settled law that an executing co in appeal over its correctness. nding Order IX Rule 13 applica jections in execution. irdly, independent su titioner/judgment-debtor No.2

nstitute a separate suit for spec te. rovements made by JD No.2 a formance. At best, these are matt dent proceedings, but not ground ummons also cannot be adjudica e in her pending application un ightly observed that such questi lowing grounds, this Court is of etitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 2014 in favour of decree-hol yed, modified or set aside by a uch order, the Executing Cour by the petitioner/judgment-deb ing the validity of the decree its ourt cannot go behind the decree The remedy of JD No.2 is in ation or by way of appeal, not uit has been filed by or her husband seeking spec

- cific also ters s to ated nder ons f the are lder any t is btor self. e or by

per enf wit law Fou ma Tho

13.

Thu not only baseles disclose any val has attained fina

14.

Acc impugned order

15.

petitioner/judgm rejected by the E

16.

17.

Pen

August 26, 2025 tripti

Whethe

Whethe rformance of their alleged ag forceable rights, they ought to th law. Having failed to do so, t wful decree under the garb of obj urthly, the allegations of fraud o atters for adjudication in proceed ose cannot form the basis to resi us, the objections raised by the p ss but also intended to delay the e lid ground recognised in law to ality. cordingly, this Court finds n r dated 05.07.2025 passed by the e revision petition is dismiss ment-debtor No.2 having no b Executing Court. order as to costs. nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

greement. If they genuinely h have pursued them in accorda they cannot obstruct execution o ections. or improper service of summons dings under Order IX Rule 13 CP st execution. petitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 execution proceedings. They do obstruct or nullify a decree wh no illegality or perversity in Executing Court. sed. The objections filed by asis in law or fact, were righ stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

- had nce of a are PC. are not hich

IN T Parveen Rani Sanjeev Kumar CORAM : HON Present: Mr MANDEEP PA 1. Pre 05.07.2025, pas Bala and anoth Ludhiana, wher herein) were dis Brief Facts 2. filed a suit for dated 16.02.201 the suit proper necessary party empowered to e pleaded that def also failed to ex 3. Ho accordingly they 24.04.2014. The THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.- CR De VERSUS N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. Navkesh Singh Goraya, Advoc -.- ANNU J. esent revision petition has been ssed in Execution No. 861 of 20 her", pending before the Court reby the objections filed by J smissed. e facts, in brief, are that Sanje possession by way of specific 13, executed between plaintiff a rty. Petitioner-Parveen Rani, w y on the ground that she was execute the sale deed of dispute fendant No.1 failed to honour he xecute the sale deed despite notic wever, none appeared on behalf y were proceeded against ex-par ereafter, an execution petition wa JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-5756-2025 (O&M) cided on :- 26.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent EEP PANNU cate for the petitioner. n directed against the order da 014 titled "Sanjeev Kumar v. As t of Civil Judge (Junior Divisio Judgment Debtor No.2 (petitio ev Kumar (plaintiff/decree-hold performance of agreement to and defendant No.1 with regard was arrayed as defendant No.2 s attorney of defendant No.1 a ed agreement to sell. It was furt er promise and that defendant N ce. f of defendants in the civil suit a rte vide judgment and decree da as filed. - ated shu on), oner der) sell 2, a and ther No.2 and 4. In objections, whe passed against claims that she execution applic parte decree b summons were procure an ex pa 13 CPC for sett contended that t is false and friv nine years, elec possession. Her consideration u defendant No.1, No.1 mortgaged Darshan Kumar possession right her family and petitioner/judgm 5. objections are proceedings but sell in favour of lawful rights. Pl is final and bind the said execution petition, pet ereby she has stated that an ex p her and defendant No.1, witho came to know about the ex pa cation was filed and that decree- behind their back. The petitio manipulated and incomplete add arte order. She has already filed ting aside the ex parte decree, w the agreement to sell dated 16.02 volous. She and her family are r ctricity connection, Aadhaar car r husband Darshan Kumar is a under a separate full and fina , besides a General Power of Att d the property with Cholaman r has been paying instalments si ts have accrued in favour of pe d any eviction would cause irr ment-debtor No.2 sought dismiss e decree-holder opposed the not maintainable. Judgment- t willfully absented herself. The f Darshan Kumar is fraudulent a laintiff's agreement dated 16.02 ding. titioner/judgment-debtor No.2 fi parte decree dated 24.04.2014 w out due service of summons. S arte order only in 2022, when -holder/plaintiff had obtained an oner/judgment-debtor alleges t dress was deliberately mentioned an application under Order IX R which is still pending. It is furt 2.2013 in favour of Sanjeev Kum residing in the suit property for rds and other documents show a bona fide purchaser for valua al agreement to sell executed torney dated 25.10.2013. Defend ndalam Finance for ₹7 lakhs a ince 2014. Valuable ownership a etitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 a reparable loss. On these groun al of execution. objections contending that debtor No.2 was aware of e alleged subsequent agreement and afterthought to defeat plainti 2.2013 is valid and genuine; dec - iled was She n ex that Rule ther mar last able by dant and and and nds, t to ff's Findings of Exe 6. objections with alleged agreeme agreement dated are executed for agreements can attained finality Court cannot go being devoid of Findings 7. Thi and the submiss 8. It i passed in favour has already filed However, unles execute it. There 9. So had also obtaine she is in posse petition which i alleged agreeme is well settled th subject to prior ecuting Court e Executing Court, after hea the observat