Civil Revision Nos.4994 & 4995 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Revision No.4994 of 2011 Ram Narain Yadav and others ......Petitioners Versus Likhi Ram .....Respondent 2. Civil Revision No.4995 of 2011 Ram Narain Yadav and others ......Petitioners Versus Babu Ram .....Respondent Date of Decision: 19.8.2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.S.K.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioners. M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J. (Oral) As identical factual matrix is involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of above indicated two revision petitions, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. 2. The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petitions and emanating from the record, is that the civil suits, bearing Nos.361 & 362 of 1996/2006 filed by Babu Ram and Likhi Ram respectively respondent- plaintiffs-decree holders (for brevity “the DHs”) against Ram Narain Yadav and others petitioner-defendant-judgment-debtors (for short “the JDs”) seeking a decree for possession and mesne profits, were decreed by the trial Court, by way of decrees dated 11.11.2006 (Annexure P1), in respect of the property in dispute. The Ist and 2nd appeals filed by the JDs were dismissed and the decrees had attained the finality. 3. As the JDs neither delivered the vacant possession of the suit property to DHs nor complied with the decrees, therefore, they (DHs) filed the Civil Revision Nos.4994 & 4995 of 2011 -2- execution petitions to execute the decrees. 4. Instead of complying with the decrees (Annexure P1), the JDs filed the objections to the execution petitions, inter-alia pleading that since their certain payments were due towards the vendor of the DHs and three execution petitions are pending, so, the present execution petitions cannot be executed before the satisfaction of the earlier decrees in favour of JDs. Not only that, the earlier transfer/transactions of the suit property in favour of DHs were termed to be fraudulent and they are not bonafide purchasers. 5. The DHs refuted the allegations of the objectors and filed the reply, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the objection petitions and res judicata. According to the DHs that the matter now raised by JDs has already been adjudicated upon by the trial court, in which, it has been held that the sale deed in respect of the property in dispute in favour of DHs is lawful, valid & binding and they (DHs) are entitled to vacant possession of the suit property. It will not be out of place to mention here that they have stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the objection petitions and prayed for their dismissal. 6. The executing Court dismissed the objections of the JDs, by means of impugned order dated 20.7.2011. 7. Aggrieved by the decision of the executing Court, the petitioner-JDs filed the present revision petitions, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-JDs, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petitions in this context. 9. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that the sale transfer/transactions in favour of DHs were fraudulent and they were not the Civil Revision Nos.4994 & 4995 of 2011 -3- boanfide purchasers and the decrees (Annexure P1) cannot be executed, unless the earlier decrees in their favour are executed, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 10. As is evident from the record that plaintiff-DHs filed the suits against the defendant-JDs for possession on the basis of title and the sale deeds, in respect of the property in dispute, were held lawful, valid and binding on the JDs. Once the matter, with regard to validity of the sale transactions, has already been decided by the trial Court between the parties, then the JDs cannot possibly be heard to say that the same are fraudulent. Sequelly, the execution of their alleged previous decrees has got nothing to do with the execution of the present decrees (Annexures P1), as urged on behalf of the JDs. Therefore, the contrary contentions of their counsel “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 11. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners to assail the findings of the executing Court in this regard. All other arguments, now sought to be urged on their behalf, in this relevant direction, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the executing Court. 12. Moreover, the executing Court has rightly negatived the claim of JDs, by virtue of impugned order dated 20.7.2011, the operative part of which is (para 11) as under:- “I have given anxious consideration to the arguments putforth by both the sides. A perusal of para 25 of the judgment of learned trial court clearly reveals that it was held that the DH had become owner of the suit property before the order of attachment before judgment dated 5.12.1991 came into force. It was further held that “a transaction of sale having already taken place, it cannot be said to have been made with the intention to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that might have been passed in the suit in which order of attachment was passed in favour of present plaintiff. Not even once, it was pleaded on behalf of plaintiff that the sale deeds in favour of Likhi and Babu had been Civil Revision Nos.4994 & 4995 of 2011 -4- effected by defendant no.1 with malafide intention to obstruct execution of decree which could have been passed in his faovur against defendants no.1 and 3. The defendant had no longer any interest whatsoever, in the ground floor, first floor and second floor as on the date of attachment whereas Likhi and Babu had direct interest in the said part of the property in dispute.” Thus, it is clear that during the trial the JDs did not raise the plea that the sale deed of suit property in favour of DH was executed by his vendor with malafide intention to obstruct execution of decree for recovery of money which may have been passed against him and in favour of the JDs. It is also noteworthy that the JDs also failed to take the plea that the DH was not a banafide purchaser of suit property, before the learned trial court. In given circumstances and in view of the fact that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. I am of the considered opinion that the plea of JDs under consideration cannot be looked into at this stage.” 13. Meaning thereby, the executing Court has rightly dismissed the objections of the petitioner-JDs, by passing the aforesaid impugned order. Such impugned order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be set aside, in exercise of extraordinary limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-JDs, so, to me, the impugned order is liable to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petitions are hereby dismissed with costs as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 19.8.2011 Judge AS