IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 14.09.2010 C.R.No.5903 of 2010 (O&M) Ajit Arora ...Petitioner Versus Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) A decree was granted by learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi for recovery of Rs.16,26,575/- on 08.10.2004 against M/s Golden Gate Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. in favour of respondent No.1. In execution, the petitioner filed objections asserting title over the land measuring 5 bighas 19 biswas. Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by the learned Executing Court on 13.03.2010, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner in respect of agricultural land measuring 5 bighas 19 biswas owned by the judgment-debtor M/s Golden Gate Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. and purchased by him, were dismissed. Learned Executing Court has found that the petitioner was one of the partners alongwith his father Gian Singh Arora and his mother Smt. Raj Arora vide partnership deed dated 19.09.1994, when M/s Golden Gate Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. was constituted. After the time of the constitution of the Company, the parents of the petitioner and the petitioner were the Directors. The petitioner claims to have purchased the property of the Company vide registered sale deed dated 03.02.2005. The entire sale C.R.No.5903 of 2010 (O&M) consideration i.e. Rs.9 lac is said to be paid at home and in cash and no amount was paid before the Sub Registrar. The entire facts have been considered by the Executing Court to return a finding that the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner is nothing, but a fraud to defeat and delay the rights of the decree-holder. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that he is bona fide purchaser for value and consideration, therefore, the bonafides of the petitioner are required to be examined by framing issues and the objections could not be summarily rejected. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The documents produced by the petitioner have been taken into consideration to return a finding that the bonafides of the petitioner are not made out. The petitioner relies upon a sale deed, which is nothing, but executed to defraud the decree-holder. Such sale deed is without payment of consideration and in cash and by a company, whose directors are the parents of the petitioner and the petitioner himself. Such act of fraud without payment of any sale consideration cannot be said to be bona fide, which may warrant examination by granting opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the present revision petition, which may warrant any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. 14.09.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2