Civil Revision No.3568 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3568 of 2008 Date of Decision:17.03.2009 Amarjit Singh ....petitioner Versus M/s Dhingra Trading and Co. & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.G.S.Bhandhari, Advocate for the respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. Decree holder/plaintiff has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 03.06.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Faridkot in Execution case No.12/12.02.2008 titled as' Amarjit Singh versus M/s Dhingra Trading & Co.', whereby objections filed by the judgment debtors have been accepted and property in dispute has been ordered to be released from attachment. As per the averments made in the revision petition, a decree was passed against Surinder Pal Singh, sole proprietor of respondent No.1 and the Predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos.2 to 5 vide judgment and decree dated 05.11.2007. Appeal filed by the respondents against the aforesaid judgment and decree was also dismissed by the District Judge, Faridkot vide his judgment and decree dated 15.05.2008. The petitioner filed execution application in which the property of the respondents was attached. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed objections to the execution application taking the plea that the property namely shop Civil Revision No.3568 of 2008 2 bearing No.68 under attachment is self acquired property of respondent No.2 and the same was not liable to be attached. Vide impugned order the objections filed by respondent No.2 were allowed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Faridkot. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order has been filed without appreciating the facts regarding the property inherited by the respondents left behind by Surinder Pal Singh who was the sole proprietor of M/s Dhingra Trading & Co. It was further argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the property under attachment was not self acquired property of respondent No.2 as the same was purchased by Surinder Pal Singh during his life time. It is further the plea of the petitioner that respondent No.2 collected a sum of Rs.39,75,000/- on behalf of the firm(i.e.respondent No.1) which was given by the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, Faridkot by way of a cheque in the name of the firm by opening a new account of the same firm having respondent No.2 as sole proprietor after the death of said Surinder Pal Singh with the connivance of the Manager of the State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Kotakpura and after deposit of those cheques received from Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation had withdrawn the amount of Rs.39,75,000/- from the bank and utilized the same for her use and for other legal heirs of Surinder Pal Singh and therefore in these circumstances it cannot be said that the respondents have not inherited any property from Sh.Surinder Pal Singh, aforesaid, and the property under attachment was not liable to be attached. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order would show that Civil Revision No.3568 of 2008 3 learned Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.)Faridkot has upheld the objections filed by the respondent/JDs only on the ground that the attached property was the self acquired property of the objector and the same could not be attached in view of the conditions in the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2007 which shows that the decretal amount was to be realized from the defendants jointly and severally but subject to their inheriting any property from Surinder Pal Singh. Learned counsel for the respondents was unable to dispute the contention of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.39,75,000/- was collected by JD Savita Rani respondent No.2 which belonged to the firm. In view of this fact alone, the impugned order cannot be sustained. I am also of the view that before passing the impugned order upholding the objections of the JDs the Executing Court should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to bring on record the documents/material to show that the respondents/JDs have inherited the property from Surinder Pal Singh. Thus, for the reasons recorded above, I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned order with a further direction to the Executing Court to decide the objections filed by the respondent JDs, afresh by giving an opportunity to the parties to support their claim. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 16.04.2009. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 17.03.2009 neenu