C.R. No.3884 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.3884 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.12.2009 Jagdish Kumar ..... Petitioner VERSUS Ajay Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL. Present: Mr.C.B.Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Jhanji and Mr.Anil Sharma, Advocates, for the respondents. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J. (ORAL) Order dated 30.05.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, whereby on receipt of the objections, the Court proceeded to frame the issues, has come under challenge. The factual background of the case is that an Arbitrator passed an Award on 13.04.1985, which was made the rule of the Court and the appeal preferred against the order dated 30.09.1988 was dismissed. An award relating to the plot measuring 240 square yards, situated at Rohtak, which was agreed to be transferred by way of registered deed in favour of Chhotu Ram by Madan Lal one of the villager was passed in favour of Jagdish Kumar by the Court at Bhiwani. Later Jagdish Kumar filed this petition for execution of the decree dated 14.02.1992. The said execution was transferred to the Court at Rohtak as the property was falling within the jurisdiction of the Court at Rohtak. Some times thereafter, decree-holder Jagdish Kumar son of Sh.Madan Lal, claiming himself to be the decree- holder, sought review of the decree of the said plot by way of getting sale C.R. No.3884 of 2008 -2- deed of the property in question registered in his favour. He also claimed to be the successor of Chhotu Ram by virtue of Will. Prem Lata wife of Hawa Singh, filed the objection petition, stating that she is the bonafide purchaser of the plot for a consideration, with the following dimensions:- East : 24' Road 20 wide West : 25' Remaining part of plot No.44 North : 29' plot of vendor now sold to Sumitra Devi South : 29' plot of vendor She further stated that she had purchased the plot by way of sale deed No.3240 dated 18.08.1996 from Madan Lal son of Sh.Mukh Ram and that the execution is time barred. Reply to the objection petition was filed by Jagdish stating therein that sale having been effected during the pendency of the proceedings, the decree-holder is not bound by such transaction and the objector had knowledge of the pending proceedings. From the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed the following issues: - 1.Whether the objectors are bonafide purchasers of the suit property, if so its effect? OPD. 2.Whether the DH had knowledge about the factum of possession of the objectors, if so its effect? OPD 3.Whether the objection petition is time barred? OPR 4.Relief. Having perused the impugned order and having heard the rival contentions, it may be noticed that it is settled proposition of law that the objection petition as preferred by the parties in execution is to be decided summarily and after taking any such evidence as may be brought on record C.R. No.3884 of 2008 -3- by the parties. The intent and purport of the rules is the application of mind before proceeding to decide about framing of the issues and decide if the objection having any merit need to be adjudicated like a trial. In case the Court reaches the conclusion that the objections need to be proved on merits and the same are not vaxious or superfluous, then the Court may proceed to try them by calling the evidence of both parties, otherwise, such objections are required to be disposed of summarily. The analogy to decide the objections summarily is that if the objections raised against the decree passed after a protracted trial, the decree could be rendered useless to allow the decree-holder to hang over a fruitless tree. In Minakshi Saini V/s Gurcharan Singh Bharmra, 2002(2) Civil Court Cases, page 229 (P&H), it has been observed as under: - There is an attempt on the part of the objectors to prolong the already protracted litigation further into infinity. The decree-holders are trying to execute the decree in their favour for the last 21 years. It has been observed by this Court in Usha Devi V/s Parshadi Lal, 1988(2) PLJ 673 and also in another case that need of framing of issues would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it is not incumbent upon the executing Court that it must put to trial every objection filed in execution proceedings may be frivolous, vexations and delay causing objections can be summarily decided. It has been also held in Som Parkash V/s Santosh Rani, 1997(1) PLR (Punjab) 89 that adjudication of objections does not mean that framing of issues is always necessary for the executing Court and the term 'adjudication' as used in Rules does not start and end with the framing of issues but it requires appreciation of the case of the objector and documents in C.R. No.3884 of 2008 -4- support of such objections. Thus, framing of issues is not always necessary and appreciation of pleadings of the objector and his documents means adjudication. The present objection petition involves pendente lite sale which is of no consequence, as if such transactions are allowed to take place and given validity then the litigation would never end. In Sanjay Verma V/s Manik Roy and others, 2007(1) RCR (Civil), 408, it has been observed as under: - The principles specified in Section 52 of the T.P.Act are in accordance with equity, good conscience or justice because they rest upon an equitable and just foundation that it will be impossible to bring an action or suit to a successful termination if alienations are permitted to prevail. A transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree just as much as he was a party to the suit. The principle of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the T.P.Act being a principle of public policy, no question of good faith or bona fide arises. The principle underlying Section 52 is that a litigating party is exempted from taking notice of a title acquired during the pendency of the litigation. The mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from dealing with the property constituting the subject matter of the suit. The Section only postulates a condition that the alienation will in no manner affect the rights of the other party under any decree which may be passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of the Court. The aforesaid judgment certainly has condemned the pendente lite transactions. In any way, the trial Court, before framing the issues appears to have not applied its mind by making necessary observations, regarding C.R. No.3884 of 2008 -5- the necessity to frame the issues. Non-application of mind results into a serious prejudice to the decree-holder as the framing of fresh issues would imply a second trial before he earns the fruits of the decree. Resultantly, I accept this petition, set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the Executing Court to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. 24.12.2009 (A.N.JINDAL) shamsher JUDGE