CR No.7541/2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7541/2010 Date of Decision : 10.1.2011. Hari Shankar Mishra ..........Petitioner v Ram Singh Bidlan and others ..........Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr. K.B. Sharma,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J. Petitioner-decree holder has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.10.2010 (P.1) passed by the Executing Court whereby on the objections filed by respondent Nos.4 & 5, issues were framed and evidence was ordered to be led. Briefly noticed, petitioner-decree holder filed a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 18.5.2005 executed by respondent No.2-Smt Krishna Devi being attorney of respondent No.1- Ram Singh Bidlan regarding sale of built up property measuring 125.5 sq. yards against a sale consideration of Rs.13 lacs. It was alleged by the petitioner-decree holder that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.13 lacs, he had already paid Rs.8,12,900/- as part consideration to the defendants/judgment debtors/petitioner Nos.1 & 2. The said CR No.7541/2010 #2# property was allegedly lying mortgaged with the standard chartered bank. Initially the date for execution and registration of sale deed was fixed as 24.8.2005, which was later on got extended till 14.9.2005. It was further alleged by the plaintiff-decree holder that on 14.9.2005, he went to the office of the Registrar, Faridabad to get the sale deed executed but the defendants did not turn up. Thereafter, the plaintiff- decree holder contacted the defendants with a request to get the sale deed executed but of no avail. Ultimately, legal notice was served upon the judgment-debtors on 23.9.2005. With these averments, the petitioner-decree holder filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. Upon notice, respondents No.1 & 2 put in appearance on 18.7.2006 through their counsel Sh. Ravinder Gupta. Thereafter, defendant No.1 and 2 did not appear on 7.5.2006 and 21.8.2006 respectively and accordingly they were proceeded against ex parte. Petitioner-decree holder in support of his case led evidence. The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff and perusing the material on record passed ex parte judgment and decree dated 3.10.2007 in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner/decree holder filed an execution petition for execution of the aforesaid decree dated 3.10.2007. The learned Executing Court in terms of the decree dated 3.10.2007 got the sale deed executed in favour of the decree holder on 6.4.2010. When the warrants of possession were issued for the delivery of possession to CR No.7541/2010 #3# the petitioner-decree holder regarding the house in question, respondent Nos.4 & 5 filed objections U/o 21 Rule 97, 100 read with Rule 101 CPC. They also filed an application dated 9.10.2010 for framing of issues. In the objection petition, it was alleged by the respondents that the plaintiff had obtained the ex parte judgment and decree by concealing the material facts. It was further alleged that the objectors were in possession of the suit property on the basis of agreement to sell dated 28.2.2006 executed by judgment debtor/defendant No.2-Smt Krishna Devi in favour of Smt Manju Kukreja-respondent No.5 herein and defendant No.2-Smt Krishna Devi had handed over the possession of the suit property to the objector after receiving the full and final sale consideration. Thus, inter alia, plea of bona fide purchaser against consideration was asserted. Along with the objection petition, the objectors-respondent Nos.4 & 5 had also filed an application for framing of issues stating therein that the objection petition cannot be decided out of pleadings and required evidence for proper adjudication of the matter in controversy. Petitioner-decree holder filed reply to the objection petition stating therein that the objections filed by the objectors-respondent Nos.4 & 5 were not maintainable as the alleged agreement to sell dated 28.2.2006 was false fabricated non-est in the eyes of law and did not effect upon the present execution petition. In reply to the application moved by objector for framing of issues, petitioner-decree holder filed reply stating therein that no issues can be framed in execution CR No.7541/2010 #4# proceedings and as such the same was liable to be dismissed. After hearing both sides, the learned Executing Court vide impugned order dated 16.10.2010 allowed the application of the objectors for framing of issues, hence the present revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-decree holder and perused the record carefully. It is not disputed that objectors have claimed themselves to be owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 28.2.2006. It is also not disputed that objectors in their objection petition have raised many pleas which require adjudication being questions of fact. Thus, the objections of the objectors are third party objections and the Executing Court is bound to consider the application of objectors who are in possession, before they are dispossessed. Their objection petition is required to be decided after framing of issues and giving opportunity to parties to lead evidence in support of their stand. By allowing so, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/decree holder. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 10.1.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge