C.R.No.6127 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6127 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.8.2011 Vazir Chand ….Petitioner Vs. Harjinder Singh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent Nos.1 & 2/objectors. Jaswant Singh, J By filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, plaintiff-petitioner (decree holder) has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 1.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Fatehabad whereby his execution application has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a Civil suit No.185-C dated 17.4.2004 for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of plot bearing khasra No.127//3/3 min west (0-17), surrounded as in south; open road side measuring 122 feet 3 inch, in north- east; house and further for possession of plot surrounded as in north; open street side measuring 29 feet 6 inch, in east; house of plaintiff side measuring 25 feet 6 inch and in west; open street side measuring 4 feet 6 inch as detailed in head note of the plot. Said suit was decreed vide judgment and order dated 25.9.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Civil C.R.No.6127 of 2009 #2# Judge (Sr. Divn.), Fatehabad. Thereafter, the plaintiff-petitioner (decree holder) filed an execution petition on 10.11.2008 and during the execution petition, objection petition dated 11.12.2008 (P.2) under Section 47 of CPC was filed by respondent Nos.1 & 2-objectors. Upon notice, a reply (P.3) to the objections dated 11.12.2008 was also filed by the petitioner-decree holder. After hearing both the sides, learned Executing Court dismissed the execution petition vide the impugned order dated 1.9.2009, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned orders passed by the learned Executing Court is wholly erroneous and liable to be set aside on the ground that the learned Executing Court without framing any issue so as to adjudicate on the issue involved in the execution, objections and the reply has proceeded to dismiss the execution petition filed by the petitioner on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further argued that the objectors/judgment debtors have forged and fabricated the alleged sale deed, during the pendency of the civil suit fraudulently. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. A perusal of the objection petition filed under Section 47 CPC on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2/objectors reveals that the plaintiff-Vazir Chand through his duly appointed general power attorney Hans Raj son of Buta Ram sold the abovesaid land measuring 15.5 marlas being 31/62 (½ share) of the land measuring 1 Kanal 11 marlas bearing Khasra Nos.127//3/3 (1-11) situated at Village Basti Bhiwan Tehsil & District Fatehabad in favour of Harjinder Singh son of Fauja Singh son of Gurdit C.R.No.6127 of 2009 #3# Singh resident of village Majra Tehsil & District Fatehabad and handed over the actual and physical possession of the sold land through Harjinder Singh vide sale deed registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Fatehabad on 29.6.2004 for a vluable consideration of Rs.2,82,000/-. It is further revealed that mutation was duly sanctioned in favour of Harjinder Singh on 19.5.2005 and after purchase of the land, the objector is running his factory of desert cooler manufacturing at the site. In para 2 of the reply to the objection petition, plaintiff-decree holder denied the execution of the sale deed in favour of Harjinder Singh stating that he was not in the knowledge of the aforesaid sale deed till filing of objection petition by the objector. However, in para No.2 of the reply to the objection petition, it is stated that he was in dire need of money due to his open heart surgery in Delhi and the suit was pending and decision was not made and to collect money, he had no alternate to sign the documents and that document was not read over and explained to him and therefore the objector cannot use said document as document of estoppels in present matter. It is not in dispute that the Civil Suit was filed on 17.4.2004. The alleged sale deed executed by Hans Raj son of Buta Ram being General Power of Attorney of the petitioner-decree holder was registered on 29.6.2004 and the decree holder has failed to produce any document on record challenging the aforesaid sale deed before any competent court of law. Neither the plaintiff-petitioner (decree holder) ever disclosed before the learned trial Court about the sale deed and mutations in favour of the objector nor he impleaded both the objectors as party but got the judgment and decree dated 25.9.2008 in his favour. C.R.No.6127 of 2009 #4# Learned Executing Court, in my opinion, while holding that the decree holder cannot claim execution of the decree dated 25.9.2008 because has already sold the land in dispute to objector Harjinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh vide the alleged sale deed, has rightly passed the impugned order. It has rightly been observed that when the petitioner/decree holder has not remained over the land in dispute, he cannot claim the possession of the same. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 1.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Fatehabad passed by the learned courts below warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. August 23, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE