66 1SA No of 2008 1 IN 11I9E I4IGH COURT Ol lJNJA13 8IIARYANA AI CHANIOIGARI ISA No of 2008 10ccidcd 0n1112010 1 0 Rllkllluddi n Appcll2llll C I C5 Versus I Fazru Respondc Z m CORAMONBLE MR JUSTICK KC PUlll I a5 Present Mravan Malik Advocatc for lhc apIocllants NSudhir Advocalc 171rrcspoildCill 7 Z 1CPlJRlJ tl Thi s is execulion sccond appcalaeaIllSt the Judgmcntdated 14022008 passcdby lcamcd Additional iistrict JudgeGurgacIllvide which thc appcalprcferredby tllc prcscntobjcctorlappel lanl agaiilstllle judglnenldated 18121007 passcdby Additional Civil Judge Senior Jhirka was dismisscd hc casc 0f Ihe pIel701 111thc applicatioll IS thatlIlc Slllt for prclption of saic by cosharcr 4Dl t0 thc exlcnl of his share the Ilonblc AlocxCourt has abolishedt11clc151 stIcli ofa c9sllaiel ill lhe PutljabPrcnption Acl Io prccmp lhe so ic hcre11wcilc dccrec 1 1 1 aep Singh Gagan Preet 2012.11.09 16: 34 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 ESA No of 2008 2 held bythe decree4lolder is a nullityIt has beenallegedthat thejudgment debtors are still in of the suit property Therefore even if the sale deed is the judgment debtor would continue as owner on accountof secondsale deed on 9 1992 Further Slnce the plaintiff lS coming as tenant over the suit propertymuch priorto 12 yearssince the sale deed dated 5 1991 therefore a pleaof nullltywlth regardtojudgment 0c and decreecan be raised in thepresentexecution Therefore the eXeCUtiOn I C5 1S liable to be declared time barred as the decree40older had been I the ofthe judgment debtorpriorto 12 yearsfrom Z the dateofsale deed Thedecreelolder opposed theobjections on thegroundthat he has no locus standi to file the objections and the same have been flled in I 08 order to delaythe executionand to frustratethe claim lthas been furtber allegedthat the suit of the plaintifffor was decreed on 7 Z 141993 and by that time no amendmentin law has been effected and therefore theregularsecondappealofthe objectorhas been dismissedby thisCourt on 1932007 and and decreedated 1481993 thus attainedfinalityIt has been furtherclaimed that Section l 5 of PunjabPi emption Act which takes away the rightof premptionof cosharer in but doesnol affect therightsof parties to on the date of of preemption suit and it does not affect the rightsof the decree4oolderas the suit was decreedpriorto the atnendlnent Fle denied ariy of of thejudglnent debtorprior to 12yearsfrom the dateofsale deed Therefore theobjections descrvedto be disinissed Singh Gagan Preet 2012.11.09 16: 34 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 e ESA No of 2008 3 ep Pn Thelearned trial Court afterhearingboth the sides dismissed theobjections Feelingdsatisfied with the above said order the preferred the Orstappealwhich was heardand dislnissed tm by learned Additional District Judgevide judgmentdated 14022008 Therefore the presentexecutionseconda5pealhas been preferred 0 CaO I have heard leamed counsel for the partiesand have gone C5 through the recordsofthe case I Learned counsel for the appellant has sublnitted that rightof prenption on the basis of bemga cosharer had been taken away by the statute in view ofI42ryana AmendmentsAct No Oof 1995and as such all Q the decrees passedby the Courts below would becolne invalid and I This aspectof lhe case has been dulydealt in bv both the 7 Z Courts below AuthorityShvam Sundcr vs Ram Kumar and another Ll 2001 21Puniab Law Reportcr 332 is completc answerlo that objection It has been laid down by the Constitutional13enchofHonble Apcx Court that once a decree of prenption has been passedthe repcalingof the provisions of preemptionAct later on would not make the decree inoperative The ameondinentwould be in nature and not retrospective The facts of the presentcase are crystalclear that Civil Suit No3 dated311992 for by way of preempiionwas filed the sale deed in favour of 11hatsuit after adjudicationwas decreedon 1481 993 The preferred 1 Singh Gagan Preet 2012.11.09 16: 34 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 ESA No of 2008 4 Il J against dated 1481993 and thatappealwas dismissed vide and decreedated 171 11994 passedbyShri MLSharma the then leamedAdditional District JudgeGurgaon The RSA N0350 of 1995 beforeHighCourt of Punjaband Haryana 1 which secondappeal was also disinissed on 193 1997 So in VlCW r of authoritative by Apex Court in ShyamSunders case 0 0 4supralthe decree dated 1481993hich has been filed afOrmed by I C both the Courts below lS a valid decrec So thc question of Iaw whether I theamendinent Act No10 of 1995has lakeonaway the rightsto execule the Z decreeofpreemption standsansweredagainst theappellant r The other legalpointraised by the counsel Iforthe appellant 1S I that lant is in possession of the propcrtysince 7A1992 ie 08 the date of execution of the sale deed in his favour and as such the r executionhas becoine tiine barred is concerned that submission is without 7 Z anysubstance The regularsecondappeal was dislnissed on 193007 So r I am of the considered view that decree can be executed within 12 years from that date So thepointoflimitation raisedby theappellant standsalso answeredagainst theappellant Learned counsel for the appellantls further submittedthat l kanal 15 inarlas of land has been by the objectorfor a considerationof Rs80001 vide sale deed dated7A 1992 Even if the sale deedis preemptedthejudgment debtor will continue owner on account of secondsale deedated 7A1992 I havecarefullyconsideredlhe said subnlission but do not flnd Singh Gagan Preet 2012.11.09 16: 34 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 ESA No of 2008 5 1 41 anyforce in that subinission Majidson of Mamrajhad executed sale deed in respectof Y t shareof khewat No Khewat Khata Nt040149Kllla No5112011 lll 2111199total land measuring13 kanals 6 marlas situated in village Nangal Shahpur Thsil FerozepurJhirka District Gurgaonand that sale deed m Q has been preemptedAs perAnncxure P4 the sale deed alIeged to be IS 1tl 0 0 respectof different khasra numbers 1 lll respectof 1z share of khasra I No511111211 in villageKuspuri Sale deed dated 52 1997 C5 I lS in of Killa No5112011 72111Olsituated in Z villageNangalShahpurTchsil l7erozepur Jhirka distrct C9urgaonSo the landinvolved as per Annexures P3 and P4 is different C In view of the above discussion the aproeal is without any I 08 inerit and the salne standsdismissed r A copy of this judgmentbe sent to the trial Court for stricl 7 Z tl 1 JlJDGE JanuarylL 2010 SV y4001 9 1 Singh Gagan Preet 2012.11.09 16: 34 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document