CR No.2374 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2374 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 21.5.2010 Sher Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Harnam Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. H.S. Diwana, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.9056-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.2374 of 2010 This petition has been filed by the petitioner-judgment-debtor challenging the orders dated 26.11.2008 and 5.5.2009 passed by the Executing Court in execution proceedings of decree dated 12.9.2005 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 11.6.2003 whereby Local Commissioner was appointed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-decree-holder. Admittedly, the decree dated 12.9.2005 has become final against the petitioner. The respondent-decree-holder filed execution application. The objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed on 19.7.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to appear before the Executing Court and was proceeded against ex parte and vide order dated 26.11.2008, the Executing Court appointed a Local Commissioner to execute the sale deed in favour of the decree-holder. It is also not in dispute that the sale deed in favour of the respondent-decree-holder was CR No.2374 of 2010(O&M) 2 executed by the Local Commissioner on the basis of the aforesaid order passed by the Executing Court on 1.12.2008. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that he is in actual cultivating possession of the land in question as owner throughout and his possession cannot be disturbed on the basis of ex parte order dated 26.11.2008 which cannot be sustained in law as the same was passed in haste and in violation of the well settled principles of natural justice. By way of this petition, the petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order dated 5.5.2009 passed by the Executing Court whereby his application for staying the operation of the sale deed dated 1.12.2008 executed in pursuance of the order dated 26.11.2008 was rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders and the averments made in the revision petition and the other documents attached with the said petition. The only ground raised before this Court to challenge the order dated 26.11.2008 is that the counsel for the judgment-debtor had instructed his Clerk to inform the Executing Court at the time of calling of the case that some objections on behalf of the judgment-debtor were to be filed in the afternoon on 26.11.2008 as the counsel was busy in some other Court and further to make a request to keep it pending for afternoon. The clerk of the judgment-debtor informed the Court accordingly as mentioned above when the case was called at about 12 O'clock and when the counsel appeared at about 12.50 P.M for filing of objections, he was apprised by the Court that the Local Commissioner had already been appointed for execution of the sale deed. Thereafter, the judgment-debtor applied for certified copy of the impugned order dated 26.11.2008 which was not supplied to him and thereafter, the judgment-debtor learnt that the CR No.2374 of 2010(O&M) 3 sale deed was got executed by the decree-holder. Since the judgment- debtor wanted to challenge the aforesaid order dated 26.11.2008, the operation/implementation of the sale deed in question should have been stayed whereas the Executing Court has wrongly rejected his prayer vide order dated 5.5.2009 and thus, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. From the aforesaid argument raised, it is amply clear that the petitioner has not raised any worthwhile objection to resist the execution proceedings and in fact as mentioned in the impugned order dated 26.11.2008, the objections filed by the petitioner stood dismissed and there was no impediment in passing of impugned order directing the Local Commissioner to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent- decree-holder. The objections raised before this Court and also before the Executing Court while making prayer for staying the operation of the sale deed dated 1.12.2008 to the effect that the petitioner wanted to file objections and further wanted to challenge the order dated 26.11.2008 and therefore, the Court should have waited for him and stay the operation of the sale deed dated 1.12.2008, are without any substance and are liable to be rejected. Even before this Court, the learned counsel failed to point out any substantial objection resisting the execution. Moreover, the sale deed in pursuance of the order dated 26.11.2008 was executed on 1.12.2008 whereas this petition has been filed after a lapse of more than one year. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. May 21, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE