Civil Revision No.2245 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2245 of 2007 Date of Decision: February 05, 2008 Bhola Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Gurcharan Singh & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Mr.Suresh Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner Bhola Singh has impugned the order dated 12.12.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala and order dated 23.11.2006 passed by Addl.District Judge, Barnala vide Civil Revision No.2245 of 2007 : 2 : which the objections filed by respondent No.2-objector have been allowed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the appeal against said order has also been dismissed. Gurcharan Singh, respondent No.1, obtained a loan of Rs.42,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 11.7.1998. When he did not return the said money, petitioner Bhola Singh filed a suit on 5.8.2000, which was decreed on 6.11.2000. Bhola Singh filed an execution application for recovery of the above-mentioned decretal amount when respondent No.2 Gurcharan Singh son of Bachan Singh filed third party objection alleging that he has purchased the land measuring 57 kanals 0 marla from Raghbir Singh son of Bant Singh vide registered sale deeds No.1925 dated 9.6.1999 and 3271 dated 5.10.1999. In fact aforesaid Raghbir Singh had purchased the above-mentioned property through a sale deed dated 27.11.1998 from Judgment debtor Gurcharan Singh son of Kahla Singh (respondent No.1). Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala allowed this objection petition on 12.12.2005, which was impugned by the petitioner by filing appeal before Addl.District Judge, Barnala. The objection petition filed by respondent No.2 was decided by the Executing Court and the following issues were framed:- 1)Whether objector Gurcharan Singh is bonafide purchaser of the property (57 kanals 0 marlas ) for consideration without any notice? OPO 2) Whether the sale deed dated 17.11.1998 executed by the JD Gurcharan Singh in favour of Raghbir Singh is forged and fabricated document? OPDH. 3) Whether the sale deed dated 9.6.1999 executed by Civil Revision No.2245 of 2007 : 3 : said Raghbir Singh in favour of Gurcharan Singh objector is also forged and fabricated document? OPDH. 4) Relief. Objector Gurcharan Singh examined marginal witnesses to the sale deeds dated 9.6.1999 and 5.10.1999. He also examined Hira Singh, the scribe of the sale deed and himself appeared as a witness in support of his case. It was justifiably submitted on behalf of the objector that he has not directly purchased the land which originally belonged to Judgment debtor Gurcharan Singh, respondent No.1. Rather he had purchased this land from Raghbir Singh, who in turn, purchased the same from Judgment debtor Gurcharan Singh. It is accordingly pleaded that the objector is a bonafide purchaser of the disputed land for a consideration and he had no notice if this land was under any charge. On the other hand, it is pleaded by the petitioner that the sale deed executed by Raghbir Singh is only aimed at defeating the recovery of decretal amount by the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties. It is seen that the sale deeds in favour of Raghbir Singh were executed much prior to the filing of a suit for recovery by the decree-holder against Gurcharan Singh Judgment debtor. The objector even had not purchased the land from the Judgment debtor. This land was first sold by Judgment debtor to Raghbir Singh and from him the same was purchased by Gurcharan Singh objector. As per objector, he had made thorough enquiries and after due verification from the revenue record, he had entered into this sale. It Civil Revision No.2245 of 2007 : 4 : has been thus rightly observed by the courts below that something may have been said in case the objector had purchased this land directly from the Judgment debtor. The sale deeds were executed in favour of Raghbir Singh in June and October, 1999 while the suit was filed only on 5.8.2000. In this view of the matter, the objections filed by the respondent-objector have rightly been allowed. The petitioner cannot seek execution of the amount due to him from a land which is now in possession and ownership of objector Gurcharan Singh. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which may call for any interference. Dismissed. February 05, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE