ESA No.8 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ESA No.8 of 2008 Date of Decision: 28.11.2008 Dev Singh .....Appellant Vs. Jaspal Singh and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.M.S. Rakkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.A.G.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The appellant herein, challenges orders dated 14.2.2007 and 2.1.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar and the Additional District Judge, Ropar, dismissing his objections and his appeal. The decree-holder filed an application for execution of decree dated 7.6.1996, whereby his suit for specific performance was decreed. After warrants of possession were issued, the appellant filed objections asserting that though he had purchased a different property, from the judgement-debtor Nikka Singh @ Malkiat Singh vide registered sale deed dated 5.1.1995, warrants of possession are sought to be executed against his property. The Executing Court dismissed the objections by holding that as the property in dispute was purchased during the pendency of the suit, they are not maintainable. An appeal filed against the order passed by the Executing Court met the same fate. ESA No.8 of 2008 2 Counsel for the appellant submits that a bare perusal of the boundaries of the suit property and the boundaries of the property sold to the appellant establishes that the properties are different. It is, therefore, submitted that the Courts below should have ordered demarcation of both the properties before proceeding to dismiss the objections. Counsel for the respondents, however, contest the correctness of the aforementioned assertions and submit that there is no difference between the boundaries. As the appellant is a vendee pendente-lite, he has no right to file objections under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders, the decree under execution, as also the sale deed, whereby the appellant purchased property. The property purchased by the appellant vide registered sale deed dated 5.1.1995 is bounded as follows :- “East : Kartar Singh and Hazura Singh West : Master Narinder Singh North : House of Jeet Singh and Mohinder Singh South “ Public passage” Whereas the property, which is subject matter of the decree under execution is bounded as follows :- “East : Property of Kartara 60 feet West : Rasta Share Aam 55 feet North : Property of Mohinder Singh South : Property of Mahant and Master Narinder Singh 50 feet situated within the abadi of village Gharuan,Jaggo Patti, Tehsil ESA No.8 of 2008 3 Kharar” A bare perusal of the boundaries set out in the sale deed and the decree under execution, suggests that these two properties bear different boundaries. In this view of the matter, the Executing Court should not have dismissed the objections summarily without ordering demarcation of the property in dispute. It would be necessary to mention here that a vendee pendente-lite has no right to file objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. Where, however, property purchased during the pendency of a suit differs from the property subject matter of decree under execution, third party objections filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC, are maintainable and would have to be decided by following the prescribed procedure. As referred to herein above, the boundaries of the two properties are different. The Executing Court was, therefore, required to decide this objection, preferably by ordering demarcation of the property purchased by the appellant. In view of what has been stated herein above, the orders passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar and the Additional District Judge, Ropar are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar to decide the objections afresh and in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kharar on 15.1.2009. Nothing stated herein shall be construed to be an expression of opinion with respect to the rights of the parties and more particularly, with respect to the boundaries. 28.11.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE ESA No.8 of 2008 4