C.R.No.6508 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6508 of 2009 Date of Decision 10.11.2009 Aseem Kumar ........ Petitioner Versus Firm Aggarwal and Company and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge is the present petition is to an order passed on an objection petition to the execution of decree dated 20.1.1983, for recovery of Rs.5,30,340/- against defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 10 to 12. The decree against defendant Nos.10 to 12 was to executed against the assets in their hands received from Smt.Tulsi Bai deceased. In execution of the said decree, the land comprising in Khasra Nos.158 K Killa 3 (10-0); 4(5-1); 125 M Killa 25(8-0); 126 M Killa 21(8-0), 22(8-0); 19(6-12); 20(6-12), 52 kanals 5 marlas was ordered to be sold, vide order dated 16.5.2001 (Annexure P-1). The date of auction was fixed as 28.6.2001. The decree-holder was permitted to participate in that auction but his bid should not be less than Rs.1, 60,000/- per acre. In terms of the said order, the property was put to sale on 28.6.2001. The present petitioner filed objections to the said sale on 23.8.2001. The primary objection of the petitioner is that the sale has been effected of a particular khasra numbers and in this way the land in C.R.No.6508 of 2009 -2- possession of the petitioner as a co-sharer has been sold without notice to him. It is contended by the petitioner that he is a co-sharer in the said land and is in cultivating possession of the same, but by the alleged sale, the interest of the objector is adversely affected. It is the said objection petition which was dismissed by the learned Executing Court on 1.12.2008. The appeal against the said order has been dismissed by the learned First Appellate court on 8.8.25009. Still aggrieved the objector is in revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the sale of the property of the objector has been effected without any proclamation on the spot and that the sale proceedings have been conducted with material irregularity and is liable to be set aside. Thus the objections filed by the petitioner could not be dismissed by the Courts below. The petitioner is a third person in respect of the execution of the decree against the judgment-debtor. The petitioner has objected to the execution of the decree only for the reason that the specific khasra numbers cannot be put to sale as he is in peaceful possession of the same as a co-sharer. The Full Bench of this Court in 1981 PLJ 204- Bhartu Vs. Ram Singh, followed by larger Bench in Ram Chander Vs. Bhim Singh 2008(3) PLR 747, that even if the sale is of specific khasra number by a co-sharer, still it is a sale of share alone. Therefore, even if a particular khasra number has been put to sale, it is a sale of a share of a judgment-debtor in the joint property. The physical possession can be delivered to the purchaser after the partition of the joint property by metes and bounds. It cannot be said that sale itself is illegal for the reason that specific khasra numbers have been put to sale. The objection that proclamation has not been effected in a proper manner is not available to the petitioner as he is not a judgment- C.R.No.6508 of 2009 -3- debtor. The petitioner's cause is to protect his share in the property as a co-sharer. Such right is not effected in any manner by the sale of a share of the judgment-debtor. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. November 10, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) rishu JUDGE