LPA No.1279 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Gagan Chopra Versus U.T. of Chandigarh and others CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocate, For the appellant. Mr. Jaivir S. Chandail, Addl. Standing Counsel and Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Standing Counsel For respondents No.1 and 7. Mr. Raman K. Sharma, Advocate, For respondent No.4. Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Special Public Prosecutor For respondent No.9. LAPITA BANERJI, J. The facts of the present case are in LPA No.1278 of 202 others”. 2. The only difference is with regard No.317, Sector not attached by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh LPA No.1279 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA NO. 1279 OF 2025 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION Gagan Chopra Versus Chandigarh and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocate, For the appellant. Mr. Jaivir S. Chandail, Addl. Standing Counsel and Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Standing Counsel For respondents No.1 and 7. Mr. Raman K. Sharma, Advocate, For respondent No.4. Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Special Public Prosecutor For respondent No.9. LAPITA BANERJI, J. The facts of the present case are similar to LPA No.1278 of 2025 “Gagan Chopra v. U.T of Chandigarh and The only difference is with regard 317, Sector-21/A, Chandigarh (for short “property in question”) was not attached by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh-respondent No.2 or District Consumer IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT LPA NO. 1279 OF 2025 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: MAY 20, 2025 ...Appellant ...Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Jaivir S. Chandail, Addl. Standing Counsel and Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Standing Counsel Mr. Raman K. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Special Public Prosecutor similar to the facts narrated Gagan Chopra v. U.T of Chandigarh and The only difference is with regard to the fact that House (for short “property in question”) was not attached by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal respondent No.2 or District Consumer SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1279 of 2024 Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh pursuant to an executi Nisha Thakur. 3. L strongly urged that since there was no question in the execution application filed by respondent No.4 Holder there was no question of de therefore, no impediment in purchasing of the property by the appellant. Therefore, respondent No.3 Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, erred in passing the impugned order dated May 30, 2024 in attaching the property in question for satisfying the decretal amount payable to respondent No.4 were available for satisfaction State Consumer Disputes Redressal Comm respondent No.2 misdirected itself by upholding the impugned order dated May 30, 2024, order dated December 05, 202 4. The present appeal is disposed of in terms of detailed order passed in LPA No.1278 of 2025 and others”, as the factual difference mentioned above does not alter the finding or reasoning arrived at by the Court in LPA (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE MAY 20, 2025 Shalini Whether speaki Whether reportable: LPA No.1279 of 2024 Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh pursuant to an execution application filed by Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strongly urged that since there was no attachment of the property in the execution application filed by respondent No.4 Holder there was no question of de-attachment of the property and therefore, no impediment in purchasing of the property by the appellant. Therefore, respondent No.3- District Consumer Disputes Red Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, erred in passing the impugned order dated May 30, 2024 in attaching the property in question for satisfying the decretal amount payable to respondent No.4 were available for satisfaction of the decree. Furthermore, Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Comm respondent No.2 misdirected itself by upholding the impugned order dated May 30, 2024, passed by the District Commission vide impugned dated December 05, 2024. The present appeal is disposed of in terms of detailed order LPA No.1278 of 2025 “Gagan Chopra v. U.T Chandigarh ”, as the factual difference mentioned above does not alter the finding or reasoning arrived at by the Court in LPA (DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh-respondent No.3, filed by private respondent No.4- earned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant attachment of the property in the execution application filed by respondent No.4-Decree tachment of the property and therefore, no impediment in purchasing of the property by the appellant. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, erred in passing the impugned order dated May 30, 2024 in attaching the property in question for satisfying the decretal amount payable to respondent No.4 when other properties . Furthermore, Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh- respondent No.2 misdirected itself by upholding the impugned order Commission vide impugned The present appeal is disposed of in terms of detailed order Gagan Chopra v. U.T Chandigarh ”, as the factual difference mentioned above does not alter the finding or reasoning arrived at by the Court in LPA No.1278 of 2025. (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document