CR No.4094 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4094 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 5.7.2010 Bhim Singh and others ..Petitioners. Vs. Raj Roop ..Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioners. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. In this revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the property in dispute was transferred by the seller to his sons by a collusive decree dated 19.8.1991. The said order has also been attached with the petition as Annexure P-2. The present suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent on 20.3.1998, therefore, without setting aside the decree dated 19.8.1991, the Executing Court cannot order for the execution of sale deed in favour of the respondents. He relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Mohamed Masthan Vs. Society, Congregation, Bros., S. Heart and another 2006(2) RCR(Civil) 611 to contend that Executing Court cannot go into the objection qua validity of a consent decree to hold it to be collusive one. A consent decree is fully enforceable till it is not set aside by a competent court. Mere pendency of a suit for declaration against such decree is of no effect on its enforceability. The entire argument raised by counsel for the petitioners is that CR No.4094 of 2010 (O&M) -2- collusive decree was passed earlier than the filing of the present suit for specific performance. However, from the judgment passed in the suit for specific performance and also from the pleadings, it transpires that the suit for specific performance was filed by Raj Roop on 26.7.1991 and not on 20.3.1998 as projected by counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, the seller in order to wriggle out of agreement to sell dated 31.5.1991, had transferred the suit property by way of collusive decree in favour of his sons during the pendency of the suit for specific performance, which was filed on 26.7.1991 and as a matter of fact, he has tried to cheat the respondent. The petitioner has not even spared this Court by making deliberate false averments while arguing the case that the suit for specific performance was filed on 20.3.1998 which in fact was decided on that day and was filed on 26.7.1991 and as such such, the order passed by the learned Court below that transfer of the property by collusive decree is hit by the doctrine of lis pendence much less Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Since the petitioners have over- reached this Court and has practically played a fraud upon the Court in order to obtain a favourable order to the deteriment of respondent and is guilty of suppresso veri and suggesto falsi, the revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- to be recovered from the petitioners as land revenue. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 5.7.2010 Judge Meenu