IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.4353 OF 2006 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 14, 2008 Mohinder Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Sukhdev Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Veenet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurav Khurana, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks setting-aside of the order dated 27.7.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti, whereby he has dismissed the application under Order 21 Rules 97 to 99 read with Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. How civil litigation can be dragged on, may be indicated from the facts of the present case. One Gurbachan Kaur entered into an agreement to sell in favour of Sukhdev Singh on 6.7.1997. She is alleged to have entered into another agreement in favour of Ajit Singh on 29.9.1997. She, however, subsequently executed a registered sale deed on 24.10.1997 in favour of Sukhdev Singh pursuant to agreement dated 6.7.1997. The possession was CIVIL REVISION NO.4353 OF 2006 :{ 2 }: also delivered to him and mutation is sanctioned in his favour. Sukhdev Singh then further executed a registered sale deed in favour of the present petitioner on 22.7.1999, who has, by now, carried out further construction including a shop and a toilet. Ajit Singh aforementioned filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 29.9.1997 against Gurbachan Singh. This suit is filed on 2.4.1998 and Sukhdev Singh is also impleaded as a party. This suit is decreed on 7.4.2001. Since the petitioner is not impleaded as a party and, thus, is not aware of this litigation. On the basis of this judgment, Ajit Singh filed an execution petition for executing the judgment and decree dated 17.4.2001 and when the petitioner came to know of this, he filed objections under Order 21 Rules 97 to 99 saying that he is owner in possession of the property in dispute and since he is not a party to a judgment dated 17.4.2001, he can not be dis-possessed. The objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.7.2004, which is now under challenge in the present petition. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application filed by the petitioner has not been properly decided and was required to be decided in terms of Order 21 Rule 101 CPC. According to the learned counsel, the question, including questions of right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to the proceedings on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 was required to be determined by the Court while dealing with the application and not by a separate suit. It is in this CIVIL REVISION NO.4353 OF 2006 :{ 3 }: context, that the learned counsel would impugn the observations and the findings recorded by the Court in the order, Annexure P-1. The Court has observed while rejecting the application of the petitioner that the civil suit No.58 of 1998 titled Ajit Singh Vs. Gurbachan Kaur was pending when the objector purchased the property on 22.7.1999. Accordingly, it is noticed that the petitioner would step into the shoes of J.D. who has fraudulently transferred the same in favour of the objector during the pendency of the civil suit. The court has accordingly observed that the decree holder can not be made to suffer for this connivance between J.D. and the petitioner. It is noticed that decree of specific performance was granted in favour of Ajit Singh but J.D. still did not execute the sale deed in his favour. She instead transferred the land in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the suit, who has now filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting-aside the judgment. It was further noticed that the petitioner had filed a separate suit bearing No.147 of 2004 in the Court of the then Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patti, against Sukhdev Singh and Ajit Singh and obtained a status-quo order by concealing the material facts. Since the petitioner is found to have stepped into the shoes of J.D. and had not preferred any appeal against the judgment dated 17.4.2001, the same can not be treated as nulity qua him. The objections are accordingly dismissed. To be fair to learned counsel, he has referred to Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daulat, 2002(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 806, to say that where suit for specific performance of agreement to CIVIL REVISION NO.4353 OF 2006 :{ 4 }: sell of a suit property, without claiming relief of delivery of possession of the suit property, it can not be treated as a suit for land and hence, this suit simpliciter for specific performance of contract is a suit for enforcement of the terms of contract wherein title to land is not subject matter of suit. In fact, in Para 16 of the judgement , it is noticed that in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property containing a stipulation that on execution of the sale deed the possession of the immovable property will be handed over to the purchaser, it is implied that delivery of possession of the immovable property is part of the decree of specific performance of contract. Even proviso (2) of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act clearly says that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relied in the plaint, the Court shall at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief. As per Section 22(2), no relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be granted by the Court unless it has been specifically claimed but this objection was open to be taken at the time of the decision in the suit, which was on 17.4.2001 and not at the stage of execution of the decree. The order dated 17.4.2001 has only granted relief of specific performance for execution of the sale deed and in this background, this aspect need not be gone into at this stage. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that all issues in this regard were required to be gone into while deciding this application would stand in contraction to his own approach where he has filed a separate suit against Ajit Singh and CIVIL REVISION NO.4353 OF 2006 :{ 5 }: Sukhdev Singh. Accordingly, I would not find any legal justification to interfere in the impugned order in view of the peculiar facts of the case where the petitioner has himself filed a suit as noticed. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. January 14 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE