Civil Revision No.2592 of 2007(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.2592 of 2007(O&M) Decided on : October 07, 2009 Veena Vahi and others ... Petitioners VERSUS Chaman Lal and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.K.S.Rekhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.V.K.Kaushal, Advocate for Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr.Vikram Chugh, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 8. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The award in this case was passed on 20.12.1979 by the Arbitrator, whereas, the sales were effected by the judgment-debtors on 3.3.1992, 1.9.1986, 13.1.1994 and 14.2.1986 in favour of the objector- respondents No.1 to 8. At the time of the execution of the award dated 20.12.1979, respondents No.1 to 8 being the subsequent vendees raised some objections regarding the purchases made by them of the property in dispute. Admittedly, the sales were effected either during the pendency Civil Revision No.2592 of 2007(O&M) [ 2 ] of the suit or during the pendency of the execution. The Court after considering the objections raised by respondents No.1 to 8, framed nine issues. Counsel for the petitioners has urged that it was not always necessary to frame the issues in the objection petitions, specially when the objections are raised by subsequent vendees, whose purchase is nullity on account of the fact that the same are hit by the principles of lis pendence. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has urged that these are the third party objections and it was obligatory on the part of the Court to frame the issues and then consider the objections. The objections were to be decided on merits after receiving the evidence of the parties. Arguments heard. The award was passed in this case on 20.12.1979 and it was made rule of the Court on 22.11.1981. The judgment debtors being dissatisfied with the said judgment, had preferred the appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 24.4.1984, against which revision petition, preferred by them was also dismissed on 7.3.1990 by this Court and the petitioners were held entitled of the property, which was agreed to be sold by the judgment debtors, prior to the judgment. The sale- deeds were also executed in favour of the petitioners through the Court, but the possession in its entirety was not given to them. As such, the petitioners filed another execution application, wherein, a compromise was effected between the parties, whereby, the judgment debtors agreed to hand-over the possession by 21.10.1995 and on the basis of the said compromise, the execution application was dismissed as withdrawn. Civil Revision No.2592 of 2007(O&M) [ 3 ] It has been contended that the respondents – judgment debtors have failed to deliver the possession of the disputed property in view of the afore-mentioned compromise, but have come up with certain other objections regarding bonafide purchase made by him, wherein, the Executing Court, instead of, dismissing the same summarily being vaxious and superflous have framed the issues. From the facts and circumstances, it is clearly revealed that the petitioners had a decree of specific performance in their favour, which has remained unsatisfied till today. The petitioners are trying to execute the decree in their favour for the last about 28 years, but their attempts have been foiled time and again. First attempt was thwarted by way of compromise, which the judgment debtors did not honour. Now, they have come up with certain other objections. When, once they had committed to deliver the possession, then it does not lie in their mouth or their vendees that they are bonafide purchasers. The objections appear to be frivolous, vexatious and in order to delay the execution proceedings. Even, if any alienation is made by the judgment debtors during the pendency of the suit/execution, it has no validity in the eyes of law. The framing of issues is not always necessary and the Court can turn down such objections being vexatious filed with the intention to frustrate the decree. This High Court in case Paramjit Singh vs. Mindo and others, 2007(1) Civil Court Cases 676(P&H) observed that the objectors/ judgment debtors having received the property by way of transfer during the pendency of the proceedings, have no right and the decree-holders are not bound by such transactions. Civil Revision No.2592 of 2007(O&M) [ 4 ] Thus, the Executing Court appears to have taken a wrong view of the matter, while framing the issues in the matter, requiring interference by this Court. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and while holding the impugned order dated 3.4.2007 as illegal, resulting into miscarriage of justice, the same is hereby set aside and the Executing Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. However, any observations made hereinabove would not affect the merits of the case. The parties shall appear before the Executing Court on 22.10.2009. October 07, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE