CR No. 4623 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4623 of 2005 Date of Decision: 2711.2006 Sukhdev Kaur ...Petitioner Vs. Jagdish Raj ...Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.A.K.Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent. Vinod K.Sharma, J. (Oral) Present revision petition has been filed against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot vide which objections filed by the petitioner have been declined by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sikander Singh Vs. Harjit Pal Singh 2005 (1) Civil Court Cases 691. It is not in dispute that the decree holder had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. The decree holder filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. However, the learned Appellate Court instead of granting relief of specific performance granted CR No. 4623 of 2005 2 alternative relief of refund of earnest money along with interest. On the failure of the Judgment Debtor to pay the decretal amount the decree holder took out an execution and sought attachment of the house for the recovery of the amount. The Judgment Debtor took an objection in the said execution application that as it was the only house in possession of the Judgment Debtor and therefore, the same is protected and the same could not be attached. Said objections have been dismissed by the learned Executing Court in view of the law laid down by this Curt in the case of Sikander Singh (supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the findings recorded by the Executing Court primarily on the ground that the judgment relied upon by the Executing Court was not applicable to the facts of the case as the said judgment was based on the facts wherein the decree for recovery of amount was passed on the basis of compromise between the parties. There is no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as it would not make any difference whether the decree for recovery of money in a case for specific performance is passed on the basis of compromise or the court of its own granted an alternative relief of recovery of earnest money along with interest while declining the decree for specific performance. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Bala Vs. Surinder Kumar AIR 1996 SC 2094 to contend that irrespective of the fact that where there was an agreement to sell or not still in the execution of money decree protection of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act would be available to the petitioner. CR No. 4623 of 2005 3 I have gone through the cited judgment and I find that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not consider the attachment of the property in case where a suit for specific performance qua the house in question was in dispute. Rather the law laid down by this Court in Sikander Singh's case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case and therefore, there is no error in the judgment passed by the learned Executing Court which may call for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. (Vinod K.Sharma) 27.11.2006 Judge rp