Civil Revision No.6748 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.Nos.4393-94-CII of 2011 and Civil Revision No.6748 of 2010 Date of Decision 28.02.2011 Dr.Sohan Lal Arora ...... Petitioner VERSUS Sagar Singh and another ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Madan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Sukhwinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.B.S.Bedi, Advocate. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: The petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.09.2010, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, directing the defendant- petitioner Dr.Sohan Lal Arora to furnish additional security of Rs.1,00,00,000/- by submitting title deed of some other property on or before 23.09.2010. It was further ordered that till then the alienation of House No.1297, Sector 18, Chandigarh shall remain stayed. The facts in the background of the case are that defendant No.2 -respondent No.2 (herein referred as 'respondent No.2') entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner of house No.161, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh and received a sum of Rs.2.5 crores from him. The agreement Civil Revision No.6748 of 2010 2 was to be performed by 31.01.2007. However, the date for execution of the sale deed was extended lateron to 31.03.2007. However, the petitioner lateron entered into an agreement to sell with respondent No.1 Sagar Singh qua the same property about which the respondent No.2 had entered into an agreement in favour of the petitioner. The last date for registration of the sale deed was fixed as fifteen days after obtaining the no objection certificate. It was also specifically settled between the petitioner and respondent No.1 that he would make the payment of Rs.2.5 crores in the shape of demand draft directly to respondent No.2 (i.e. original owner of the property qua which the agreement to sell was entered into). However, respondent No.1 did not comply the specific clause of the agreement to the effect that he would pay Rs.2.5 crores to respondent No.2 Anil Ghai, the original owner of the property, and filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner and respondent No.2. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC was filed and vide order dated 22.01.2009, property of the petitioner i.e. House No.1297 Sector 18, Chandigarh, was ordered to be attached. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Civil Revision No.1740 of 2009, wherein the High Court vide order dated 04.08.2009, observed as under:- “In this view of the matter, this revision petition is allowed in part and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the petitioner may approach the learned trial Court and furnish either sufficient bank guarantee and or the title deeds of any other immovable property, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. On furnishing thereof, the orders regarding attachment Civil Revision No.6748 of 2010 3 of House No.1297, Sector 18, Chandigarh shall stand set aside/vacated.” In compliance of the order dated 04.082009, the petitioner filed the original sale deed of house No.2009, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh, as security to satisfy the decree, which was accepted and the trial Court vide order dated 13.09.2010 released the attachment of House No. 1297, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.1 Sagar Singh moved an application, directing the petitioner to furnish additional security. The Court, after hearing the parties, vide impugned order dated 20.09.2010 observed that the security given by the petitioner-defendant No.1 Dr.Sohan Lal Arora is not sufficient to satisfy the decree as the claim of respondent No.1 was more than Rs.2,00,00,000/-, therefore, the petitioner was directed to file additional security of Rs.1,00,00,000/- by submitting title deed on or before 23.09.2010. It was further ordered that till then the House No.1297 Sector 18, Chandigarh shall remain under attachment. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has come up in revision. Heard. There is no denying a fact that respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance as well as permanent injunction and in the alternative suit for recovery of Rs.2,00,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. The High Court vide order dated 04.08.2009 did not fix any amount with regard to which the security was to be furnished. It had ordered only to furnish bank guarantee or title deeds of any immovable property to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In compliance of the order dated 04.08.2009, the order dated 13.09.2010 passed by the trial Court indicates that the petitioner had furnished the bank guarantee by way of title Civil Revision No.6748 of 2010 4 deeds of House No.2009, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh while recording that the value of the said house is more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- but the Court while accepting the bank guarantee recorded its satisfaction that the decree could be satisfied by sale of the said house. There is nothing to show as to what prompted the Court to take the adverse view of the matter while recording the observations that the value of the said house was not sufficient to satisfy the decree which may be passed for more than Rs.2,00,00,000/-. No report of the valuer has been received in order to verify the actual value of share of the petitioner in the said house, as such, without ascertaining as to what was the actual value of the house, the Court fell in error in passing the fresh order, directing the petitioner to furnish the title deed of any other property. However, the Court could first verify the value of the house regarding which the security was furnished and in case it was found to be deficient then the Court could direct the petitioner to furnish title deed of other property. Thus, the order being against the canons of justice cannot be sustained. Resultantly, this petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to ascertain the value of the property with regard to which the title deed was deposited through any valuer or otherwise and if the said property is found to be deficient to satisfy the decree which ultimately may be passed then it could direct the petitioner to furnish the title deed of any other property. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 28.02.2011 mamta-II