Ravinder Pal Kaur vs Manjit Kaur And Others on 20 August, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 4]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ravinder Pal Kaur vs Manjit Kaur And Others on 20 August, 2019

Bench: Raj Mohan Singh

CR No. 4918 of 2019                                             -1-

110
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                            CR No. 4918 of 2019
                            Date of Decision: 20.08.2019

Ravinderpal Kaur
                                                            -Petitioner
                                       Vs
Manjit Kaur and others
                                                         -Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate,
         for the petitioner.

                 ****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was defendant No.8 in the civil suit for recovery.

2. There was an agreement to sell in respect of 53K-7M out of 106K-10M in which the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 7 were co-sharers.

3. Petitioner was subsequent vendee during currency of obligation between plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 7. Private property of the petitioner situated in some different District is sought to be attached in execution of decree for recovery.

4. An application under Order 21 Rule 58 and Section 60-C read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before the Executing Court.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2019 09:48:13 ::: CR No. 4918 of 2019 -2-

5. In view of nature of order which this Court proposes to pass, there is no necessity of issuing any notice to the respondents as it would further delay disposal of the present revision petition and no prejudice is going to be caused to anyone.

6. Pleadings of the aforesaid application are complete before the Executing Court.

7. At this stage, without meaning anything on the merits of the case, it would be just and appropriate to direct the Executing Court to decide the aforesaid application within reasonable time in accordance with law without being influenced by any statement of fact made hereinabove.

8. Till such time, sale (if any) be not confirmed. 20.08.2019 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) Jyoti Yadav JUDGE

1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

2. Whether reportable : Yes/No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2019 09:48:14 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court