Civil Revision No.7310 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7310 of 2011 Date of Decision : 19.12.2011 Smt. Sunita .......Petitioner Versus Virender Singh .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms. Savita Tanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate, for the respondent. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary judisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 31.10.2011 and 12.11.2011, (Annexures P3 and P4) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Jind. The respondent filed suit for seeking specific performance. After recording the specific finding that the transaction between the parties was found to be a loan transaction, therefore, the suit for specific performance was dismissed. However, the suit was decreed against the petitioner for the recovery of `1,50,000/- along with interest in favour of the respondent. 1 Civil Revision No.7310 of 2011 The respondent filed execution proceedings in which the petitioner filed objections. The said objections were declined by the learned trial Court vide order dated 31.10.2011 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, in the execution proceedings, the warrants of sale have been issued against the petitioner vide order dated 12.11.2011 (Annexure P-4). The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the suit filed by the respondent for specific performance stands dismissed, the decree drawn for the recovery of `1,50,000/- is illegal. The loan transaction is not proved on record. She further states that the plot sought to be attached in pursuance of the decree in execution proceedings by the learned Executing Court is appurtenant to the dwelling house and an integral part of the residential unit occupied by the petitioner, therefore, exempted from attachment. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and refers to the sale deed, whereby the present plot was purchased by the petitioner from Smt. Santosh, who happens to be none other than the mother of the petitioner. He further contends that the objections filed by the petitioner earlier also stands dismissed and the second objections before the executing Court are not maintainable. As the subject matter is already under the active consideration of the Appellate Court, the present revision petition is allowed; the orders Annexures P3 and P4 are held in abeyance; and the learned appellate Court is requested to decide the appeal as 2 Civil Revision No.7310 of 2011 expeditiously as possible. However, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 19.12.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 3