IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2491 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.09.2009 Manjit Kaur .....Petitioner versus Mohinder Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.J.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Girdhar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.12.2006 passed by the Execution Court, Muktsar, whereby the objections submitted by respondent No.2 (Gurcharan Singh son of Bohar Singh) have been accepted and he has been allowed to retain the possession of land measuring 5 kanals 15 marlas comprised in Mustil No.68, Killa No.1 min, situate within the revenue estate of Village Goneana, Tehsil Muktsar, on the basis of an alleged Exchange Deed dated 19.2.1999. Briefly stated, the facts are that respondent No.1-Judgment C.R. No.2491 of 2007 (O&M) 2 Debtor entered into an agreement to sell on 19.11.1997 with the petitioner- decree holder in respect of the land measuring 15 kanals 12 malas. As respondent No.1 failed to execute the sale deed, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell on 25.5.2000. The said suit was decreed on 14.8.2002. In execution of the judgment and decree dated 14.8.2002, the petitioner got executed a sale deed in her favour through the Executing Court. It is, thereafter, that respondent No.2 came forward with the objections that the Judgment Debtor (Mohinder Singh) has already entered into an Exchange Deed with his deceased father Bohar Singh on 19.2.1999 which had been implemented between the parties and duly reflected in the revenue record etc. The said objections have been accepted by the Executing Court, vide the impugned order dated 11.12.2006 giving rise to this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned order. Suffice it to observe that most of the documents relied upon by the Executing Court in holding that the Exchange Deed was bonafidely executed, have come into existence during the pendency of the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner-decree holder. No finding has been returned by the Executing Court that the petitioner had the knowledge of the alleged Exchange Deed dated 19.2.1999 or she was ever apprised of the factum of exchange or consequential delivery of possession in favour of respondent No.2. In the absence of a categoric finding to that effect, the impugned order cannot be sustained. C.R. No.2491 of 2007 (O&M) 3 For the reasons aforestated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 11.12.2006 is set-aside and the Executing Court is directed to decide the objections afresh and in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 26.10.2009. Dasti. 23-09-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE