Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surat Singh Th.Lr vs Tejinder Singh on 28 March, 2018
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
C.M. No.6057-CII of 2018 and -1-
C.R. No.4172 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. No.6057-CII of 2018 and
C.R. No.4172 of 2017
Date of Decision.28.03.2018
Surat Singh through LR ......Petitioner
Vs
Tejinder Singh ........Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)
C.M. No.6057-CII of 2018 For the reasons stated in the application, order passed by this Court on 12.03.2018 is recalled and the revision petition is restored to its original number.
Application is allowed.
C.R. No.4172 of 2018 The present revision petition is at the instance of the decree holder against the order dated 4.10.2016 whereby the application submitted under Section 151, 152 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the draft sale deed and as well as the plaint in respect of plot bearing No.7, khasra No.1348 in place of khasra No.1345 has been rejected.
Mr. Malkeet Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-decree holder had entered into an agreement to sell with the judgment debtor/defendant dated 1.6.1998 in respect of plot No.7, khasra No.1345 min, length 73 feet and width 13 feet area measuring 256 sq. yards consisting of 4 sheds and room on ground floor and 4 rooms on 1st floor bounded as under:-
1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2018 05:07:00 ::: C.M. No.6057-CII of 2018 and -2- C.R. No.4172 of 2017 East: Round 20 feet West: Rana Mal North: Plot No.8 South: Plot No.2 situated in the area of Sultanwind Urban Abadi Kot Atma Ram, Amritsar. The aforementioned suit titled as "Suraj Singh Vs. Tejinderpal Singh" was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2008 and the appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed. The aforementioned decree ultimately had attained finality. During the execution proceedings, the draft sale was prepared but it was realized that khasra number in the agreement to sell was mentioned as 1345 whereas it should have been 1348.
It is in that background of the matter, the application was moved but the same was opposed by the judgment debtor disputing the particulars of khasra number, though the dimensions and description of the property was correctly given. The Executing Court, thus, has committed illegality and perversity in declining the application as no harm and prejudice would be caused to the defendant-judgment debtor as he knew that he had intended to sell khasra No.1348 and not 1345, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the order under challenge.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, appraised the paper book and of the view that the order under challenge is perfectly legal and justified as it is not the case of going behind the decree but an attempt made to change the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell specifying the khasra numbers, which was entered voluntarily by the parties to the lis. The plaintiff should have been wary while entering into the agreement to sell with regard to the khasra number and it should have tallied with the 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2018 05:07:01 ::: C.M. No.6057-CII of 2018 and -3- C.R. No.4172 of 2017 jamabandi. Having failed to do so, the decree came to be passed in respect of khasra number, of which according to the petitioner, the respondent is not the owner. Neither the Courts below nor this Court can change the khasra number unless and until, other party had no objection but the fact of the matter is that the application was objected.
In view of the aforementioned, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the order under challenge and the same cannot be said to be passed without jurisdiction. No ground for interference is made out. The revision petition stands dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL)
JUDGE
March 28, 2018
Pankaj*
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes
Whether reportable No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2018 05:07:01 :::