IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 133 CR-1259-2025 Date of Decision.:21.04.2025 Mohinder Singh …..Pe..oner Vs. Saudagar Singh .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. M.K. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Suit for recovery of ₹10,70,000/- along with interest filed by the plainff Saudagar Singh (respondent herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 04.07.2003. In the execuon filed by the said decree-holder, sale cerficate in respect of a/ached and sold property of JD was issued in his favour on 30.03.2022. Respondent/decree-holder then moved another execuon seeking delivery of possession of the property, regarding which sale cerficate was issued in his favour. During pendency of that execuon, the decree-holder transferred the property to Manpreet Singh and Harjit Singh, who moved applicaon under Order I Rule 10 CPC, as they stepped into the shoes of decree holder. That applicaon has been allowed by way of one impugned order dated 06.01.2024 (Annexure P-1). 2. Warrant of possession was issued, when Jagroop Singh, the son of the judgment-debtor Mohinder Singh filed third party objecons. It was claimed by Jagroop Singh that he had taken the suit property on lease from the JD Mohinder Singh and had sown crop thereon and so possession be not delivered to the decree-holders ll he harvest the crop. That applicaon was dismissed by the trial Court vide another impugned order dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure P-2). The possession was delivered to the decree- holder/respondent as per the report dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P-4). NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.22 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1259-2025 -2- 3. Assailing the aforesaid orders, it is contended by learned counsel that decree-holder could not have sold the suit property to Harjit Singh and Manpreet Singh. It is further submi/ed that third party objecons could not have been dismissed, without permi=ng Jagroop Singh to harvest his crop. 4. This Court does not find any merit in the peon. As noced by the trial Court that in the sale deed in favour of Manpreet and Harjit, only symbolic possession had been delivered to them. Sale cerficate had already been issued in favour of the decree-holder and as such, there was no bar in seeking the possession by the said transferees, a>er ge=ng themselves impleaded in the execuon. As such, finding no merit in the revision assailing the order dated 06.01.2024, the same is hereby dismissed. 5. Coming to the order dated 09.02.2024, suffice is to say that the applicaon had been moved by the third objector Jagroop and not by the judgment-debtor Mohinder Singh, but revision is filed challenging the order by JD and not by Jagroop. Apart from this, the crop was sown by the third party objector, a>er the sale of the property in favour of the decree-holder. 6. As such, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. Consequently the revision does not contain any merit qua any of the impugned orders and so, the same is hereby dismissed. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE April 21, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.22 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document