C.R. No.4021 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.R. No.4021 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.07.2010 Ajit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Gurcharan Singh ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Alok Singh, J. (Oral). In the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is assailing order dated 31.5.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kapurthala in CM No.25 of 1.11.2008, thereby rejecting objections of the petitioner against the execution of decree passed in favour of Durga Dass. Brief facts of the present case are that Gurcharan Singh was owner of the suit property who has executed agreement to sell in favour of Durga Dass on 6.6.1978. Durga Dass filed suit for specific performance against Gurcharan Singh, which was decreed by the competent Court. Durga Dass, thereafter applied for the execution of decree passed in his favour on the basis of agreement to sell dated 6.6.1978. C.R. No.4021 of 2010 2 Meanwhile, present petitioner filed suit for specific performance on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 18.1.1979 saying he was put in possession of the property in dispute in part performance of the contract. Present petitioner lost upto the Supreme Court and no decree for specific performance was granted in favour of the petitioner. Rather decree for refund of earnest money was granted in his favour. Now, the petitioner filed objections in the execution moved by Durga Dass saying that he is also having agreement to sell and is in possession of the property in dispute. The Executing Court vide impugned judgement has rejected objections of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that since the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute in part performance of the contract i.e. agreement to sell dated 18.1.1979, hence he has every right to resist decree passed in favour of Durga Dass. Undisputedly, the petitioner also filed suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 18.1.1979 and lost up to the Supreme Court. No relief for specific performance was granted in his favour nor his possession was found to be in part performance of the contract i.e. agreement to sell dated 18.1.1979. That being so, he cannot resist decree in favour of Durga Dass. Objections were rightly rejected. In view of the above, petition is devoid of merit and hence is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 01.07.2010 sk.