M/S Deepika Alloys vs M/S Kelvin Bikes Pvt. Ltd. & Another on 30 October, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Deepika Alloys vs M/S Kelvin Bikes Pvt. Ltd. & Another on 30 October, 2012

Bench: A.N. Jindal

Civil Revision No. 4110 of 2010 (O&M)                     1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
               AT CHANDIGARH.



                       Civil Revision No. 4110 of 2010 (O&M)
                       Date of decision: 30.10.2012


M/s Deepika Alloys

                                         ....Petitioner

           Vs.


M/s Kelvin Bikes Pvt. Ltd. & another


                                         ....Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
                       ******
Present:- Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate,
          for the petitioner.

           Mr. Amit Rawal, Senior Advocate,
           with Mr. Sahil Khunger, Advocate,
           for respondent No.1.

A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL)

This petition assails an order dated 15.05.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana (Executing Court), dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for refund of Rs.4,30,000/-, which were deposited by the plaintiff as consideration for the passage qua which the sale deed was to be executed by the defendant/judgment debtor.

The petition appears to be misconceived. Earlier the petitioner was decree-holder and allowed the respondent-M/s Kelvin Bikes Pvt. Ltd. to be substituted in its place without any objection. Now the petitioner is claiming refund of the aforesaid Civil Revision No. 4110 of 2010 (O&M) 2 amount while saying that the decree dated 22.08.1996 was the result of fraud and the same is inexecutable. As a matter of fact, the decree holder M/s Kelvin Bikes Pvt. Ltd.-respondent No.1 (being assignee) had been substituted in place of M/s Deepika Alloys-petitioner in the year 2003 and after the said substitution, the dispute remained between respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Furthermore, the petitioner was having its eyes open at the time of entering into a compromise with Ishar Singh and allowing the Court to pass a decree dated 22.08.1996, while accepting the contention of Ishar Singh that he was ready to transfer the land comprised in Khasra No. 341 on payment of Rs.4,30,000/-. Now by way of a simple application, the petitioner cannot come to contend that the said agreement was not valid and the decree is inexecutable. The said decree cannot be set aside merely on the basis of this contention.

As such, the present petition being not maintainable, is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner may seek any remedy, available to him, as provided under law.




                                              (A.N.JINDAL)
October 30, 2012                                JUDGE
ajp

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court