CM-17098-CII-2025 in/and -1- CR-3036-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (157) CM-17098-CII-2025 in/and CR-3036-2025 Date of decision: - 01.09.2025 Dharampal Singh Phogat ....Petitioner Versus Sunil Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Shiv Raj Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Raj Partap Singh Brar, Asstt. A.G., Haryana. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) CM- 17098 -CII-2025 1. Present application has been filed under Section 151 CPC for revival of the above-said petition. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The order dated 07.08.2025 is recalled and the main petition is restored to its original number. CR-3036-2025 1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.05.2025 NARESH KUMAR 2025.09.02 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CM-17098-CII-2025 in/and -2- CR-3036-2025 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak vide which the application under Section 114 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for review of the order dated 07.08.2019 (Annexure P-6) has been dismissed. 2. On 19.05.2025, this Court was pleased to pass the following order: - “Present:- Mr. Shiv Raj Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. **** Inter alia contends that vide order dated 07.08.2019 (Annexure P-6), the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak had assessed the value of property at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per square meter and had also assessed the cost of building at Rs.14,00,000/- which order was not challenged by the petitioner at that stage. It is submitted that it is respondent Nos.1 to 3 who had filed Civil Revision in the year 2019 which was ultimately dismissed on 08.05.2024. It is submitted that on account of pendency of the said revision petition, the order dated 07.08.2019 was never acted upon. It is submitted that since a period of more than five years had elapsed from the passing of order dated 07.08.2019 thus, the petitioner had moved an application (Annexure P-9) with the prayer that auction proceedings be conducted in accordance with the prevailing prices. It is submitted that the said application had been dismissed by the impugned order causing irreparable loss to the petitioner-decree holder. Notice of motion for 16.07.2025. Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and prays for an adjournment to get instructions in the matter. The proceedings before the Executing Court shall remain stayed. To be taken up after the urgent list. 19.05.2025” NARESH KUMAR 2025.09.02 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CM-17098-CII-2025 in/and -3- CR-3036-2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the price of the property in question at present is Rs.2.50 crores and thus, the petitioner should be given 1/4th of the said amount, in case, respondents No.1 to 3, who are brothers and sister of the present petitioner wish to purchase the share of the petitioner, which is to the extent of 1/4th. 4. Learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents No.1 to 3 has fairly submitted before this Court that respondents No.1 to 3 would pay 1/4th of the said price, which as per the case of the petitioner, has the market value of Rs.2.50 crores within a period of one month from today and on the respondents No.1 to 3 paying the said amount to the petitioner, he would have no right left in the property in question. 5. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for contesting respondents No.1 to 3, the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure P-11) is modified and the present revision petition is disposed of with the following directions/observations: - (i) With the consent of the parties, the market price of the property in question at present is assessed as Rs.2.50 crores. The share of the petitioner is admittedly 1/4th and thus, the value of his share would come to Rs.62.50 lakhs. (ii) As undertaken before this Court, respondents No.1 to 3 would pay the said amount of Rs.62.50 lakhs to the present petitioner on or before 01.10.2025. iii) On the respondents No.1 to 3 making the said payment, the NARESH KUMAR 2025.09.02 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CM-17098-CII-2025 in/and -4- CR-3036-2025 present petitioner would have no right left in the property in question. ( VIKAS BAHL ) September 01, 2025 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2025.09.02 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement