CR No.1448 of 1994 : 3 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 23.11.2009 Om Parkash ... Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: None for the parties. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 08.02.1994, passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Sirsa, dismissing the execution petition filed in respect to the execution of a money decree. The Punjab National Bank filed a suit for recovery against the borrowers and guarantors. The said suit was decreed. Bank filed execution petition for execution of the money decree and furnished the list of the properties for attachment and sale to recover the decretal amount. One Om Parkash, petitioner herein, filed objections objecting the attachment and sale of the property claiming to be the owner in possession of the same having been obtained by way of exchange vide Civil Court decree dated 06.08.1991 passed in Civil Suit No.750 of 1991 in the case title Om Parkash Vs. Darshan Singh. It was further CR No.1448 of 1994 : 3 pleaded that Darshan Singh who exchanged the property with objectors had become owner by virtue of Civil Court decree dated 02.08.1990 passed in another Civil Suit No.1270 of 1990 titled as Darshan Singh Vs. Shakuntla Devi. It was further pleaded that Shakuntla Devi had purchased the property vide sale deed No.3652 dated 01.10.1097 from one Ram Parkash Mehta. Ram Parkash Mehta had become owner by virtue of earlier Civil Court decree dated 25.08.1987 passed in Civil Suit No.396 of 1987 titled Ram Parkash Mehta Vs. Jagdish. Jagdish had also acquired the property by virtue of another decree dated 17.07.1987 passed in an earlier Civil Suit No.406 of 1987. This decree was suffered by Kailash Devi and Ashok Kumar, Judgment Debtors. The objector further pleaded that they had no notice of any charge or lien against the property in question. The property was never mortgaged or pledged with the bank and, thus, the same cannot be attached in execution of the decree. The Decree Holders pleaded that transactions of property in question are illegal and against law and, thus, do not confer any right upon the transferees. The Judgment Debtors had transferred the property to defeat the decree likely to be passed against them. The Executing Court accepted the contention of the Decree Holders and dismissed the objections vide the impugned order dated 08.02.1994 on the ground that when the original transfer by the Judgment Debtors Nos.3 to 5 are fraudulent then all subsequent transfers cannot be stated to be valid. It is this order which has been assailed in the present CR No.1448 of 1994 : 3 writ petition. None has put in appearance on behalf of the parties. I have considered the impugned order and also examined the grounds taken in the revision petition. The suit was decreed on 18.08.1987. It is no body's case that the property was either pledged or mortgaged with the bank nor there was any indication from the Court against the transfer of the property by the Judgment Debtors. As a matter of fact, the bank has no lien on the property in question. The Judgment Debtors suffered a decree on 17.07.1987. Thereafter, the property changed hands four times. The Executing Court did not hold any enquiry on the objections of the revision petitioner and merely on the basis of the contention of the Decree Holders, the objection petition has been rejected. There is nothing on record to show that any fraud was played by the objector and if so in what manner. In the absence of such allegations and the proof of fraud, the transfer in favour of the objector could not have been declared as illegal. The impugned order suffers from inherent illegality and the same is liable to be set aside. For the reasons recorded above, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Impugned order dated 08.02.1994, is set aside. No costs. 23.11.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO