111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32741-2025 Date of decision: 18.06.2025 AMARJEET ..Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Virender Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Kumar Dagar, DAG, Haryana. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral) 1. Admittedly, there is a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell passed in favour of the first informant and against the petitioner’s father. Pursuant to the aforesaid decree, which has become final, the sale deed has already been registered in favour of the first informant. The petitioner, who is son of the judgment debtor is alleged to have harvested the wheat crop sown by the first informant (decree holder). Moreover, the property between them has already been partitioned on 23.10.2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed a suit for declaration and joint possession in which status quo has been granted. 3. A decree passed by the Court is required to be respected. The petitioner refuses to honour the decree, hence, no ground to grant indulgence is made out. 4. Dismissed. June 18th, 2025 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) Ayub JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MOHD AYUB 2025.06.18 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.