CR-5320-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110 Dhani Ram Garg Paramjit Singh CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. for the petitioner. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby application/objections fi have been dismissed and vide which joint property of the petitioner has been put to sale. 2. In brief, the facts, as culled out from the revision petition respondent-Paramjit forged two separate agreements to sell dated 17.05.2013 showing therein petitioner as a seller of two different plots, which were never owned and possessed by hi In both agreements, respondent Rs.11,75,000/- to the petitioner. However, instead of filing suit for specific performance, the respondent had per annum on the last day of limitation i.e. 16.05.2016. The petitioner contested the aforesaid suit but the learned trial Court decreed the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of Decision: Dhani Ram Garg Versus HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Pawan K. Longia, Advocate for the petitioner. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.03.2025 8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby application/objections filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC been dismissed and the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P vide which joint property of the petitioner has been put to sale. In brief, the facts, as culled out from the revision petition Paramjit Singh along with his real brother namely forged two separate agreements to sell dated 17.05.2013 showing therein petitioner as a seller of two different plots, which were never owned and possessed by hi In both agreements, respondent-Paramjit Singh and and Rs.12,00,000/- (total Rs.23,75,000/ to the petitioner. However, instead of filing suit for specific performance, the filed suit for recovery of earnest money along with interest @12% per annum on the last day of limitation i.e. 16.05.2016. The petitioner contested the aforesaid suit but the learned trial Court decreed the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5320-2025 Date of Decision:08.08.2025 ... Petitioner ... Respondent AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the setting aside the impugned order dated 04.03.2025 8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana led by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC impugned order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P vide which joint property of the petitioner has been put to sale. In brief, the facts, as culled out from the revision petition, are that the Singh along with his real brother namely Gurpreet Singh forged two separate agreements to sell dated 17.05.2013 showing therein petitioner as a seller of two different plots, which were never owned and possessed by hi Singh and Gurpreet Singh had paid (total Rs.23,75,000/-) as earnest money in cash to the petitioner. However, instead of filing suit for specific performance, the filed suit for recovery of earnest money along with interest @12% per annum on the last day of limitation i.e. 16.05.2016. The petitioner contested the aforesaid suit but the learned trial Court decreed the same vide judgment and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Petitioner ... Respondent The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the setting aside the impugned order dated 04.03.2025 8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana led by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC impugned order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-10) , are that the Singh had forged two separate agreements to sell dated 17.05.2013 showing therein petitioner as a seller of two different plots, which were never owned and possessed by him. Singh had paid ) as earnest money in cash to the petitioner. However, instead of filing suit for specific performance, the filed suit for recovery of earnest money along with interest @12% per annum on the last day of limitation i.e. 16.05.2016. The petitioner contested vide judgment and PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5320-2025 decree dated 17.11.2023 interest @6% per annum from 01.11.2014 till its realization. of the aforesaid civil suit, respondent 38 Rule 5 CPC read with Order the petitioner, which was allowed vide order dated 18.08.2018. judgment and decree of the learned trial Court has been challenged in appeal by the petitioner, which is pending consideration. respondent filed execution application stating therein that no appeal has been filed as per his knowledge. In the execution proceedings, objections before the learned Executing Court but the same vide order dated 04.03.2025 deciding the application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC. Executing Court allowed the application filed by the respondent property of the petitioner, despite the fact that an application for adjournment was filed by the petitioner on the ground that revision petition is pending consideration before this Court. Hence, the revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the p already been effected between the parties respondent-plaintiff/DH has learned trial Court petitioner for auctioning his half share in his brother. The learned Executing Court the auction of half share in the joint property and that it is for the apply for partition of the property and not the decree holder at this stage. objections filed before the learned Executing Court have been dismissed and sale -2- decree dated 17.11.2023 to recover Rs.12,00,000/ interest @6% per annum from 01.11.2014 till its realization. of the aforesaid civil suit, respondent-plaintiff had filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC read with Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC , which was allowed vide order dated 18.08.2018. judgment and decree of the learned trial Court has been challenged in appeal by the petitioner, which is pending consideration. respondent filed execution application stating therein that no appeal has been filed as per his knowledge. In the execution proceedings, objections before the learned Executing Court but the same vide order dated 04.03.2025 and sale of the property has been ordered without deciding the application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC. Executing Court allowed the application filed by the respondent property of the petitioner, despite the fact that an application for adjournment was filed by the petitioner on the ground that revision petition is pending consideration before this Court. Hence, the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a compromise has already been effected between the parties for an amount Rs.22 lakhs plaintiff/DH has received half of the said amount learned trial Court should not file the execution application petitioner for auctioning his half share in the property The learned Executing Court has wrongly held that there is no bar on the auction of half share in the joint property and that it is for the apply for partition of the property and not the decree holder at this stage. objections filed before the learned Executing Court have been dismissed and sale ,000/- from the petitioner along with interest @6% per annum from 01.11.2014 till its realization. During the pendency plaintiff had filed an application under Order Rule 1 & 2 CPC for attachment of property of , which was allowed vide order dated 18.08.2018. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial Court has been challenged in appeal by the petitioner, which is pending consideration. Despite pendency of appeal, the respondent filed execution application stating therein that no appeal has been filed as per his knowledge. In the execution proceedings, the petitioner had filed objections before the learned Executing Court but the same have been dismissed and sale of the property has been ordered without deciding the application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC. On 30.07.2025, the learned Executing Court allowed the application filed by the respondent-DH for sale of the property of the petitioner, despite the fact that an application for adjournment was filed by the petitioner on the ground that revision petition is pending consideration etitioner submits that a compromise has for an amount Rs.22 lakhs and the received half of the said amount and as such, the should not file the execution application against the present property jointly owned by him with wrongly held that there is no bar on the auction of half share in the joint property and that it is for the final owner to apply for partition of the property and not the decree holder at this stage. objections filed before the learned Executing Court have been dismissed and sale from the petitioner along with During the pendency plaintiff had filed an application under Order for attachment of property of The aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial Court has been challenged in appeal by the espite pendency of appeal, the respondent filed execution application stating therein that no appeal has been filed the petitioner had filed have been dismissed and sale of the property has been ordered without On 30.07.2025, the learned f the property of the petitioner, despite the fact that an application for adjournment was filed by the petitioner on the ground that revision petition is pending consideration etitioner submits that a compromise has and the and as such, the against the present with wrongly held that there is no bar on final owner to The objections filed before the learned Executing Court have been dismissed and sale PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5320-2025 of the property has been ordered without deciding the applica Rule 66 CPC, thus, prays for setting aside of the impugned orders as mentioned above. 3. Heard. 4. A perusal of the record reveals that the compromise as alleged to be effected between the parties was between Paramjit Singh and Gurpreet Singh as first party and Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal and Jaspal Rai Singla as second party. The petitioner-JD was not privy to the said compromise nor was he signatory to the compromise dated 30.01.2019. In the absence of any compromise, decree was passed in favour of the interest @6% per annum from the petitioner As the petitioner failed to deposit the decretal amount along with interest, respondent-DH has submitted the property of p Court and thereafter, having left no other option, property of the petitioner jointly owned by him with his brother has been put to auction. 5. In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned orders dated 04.03.2025 and 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. Resultantly, the present revision petition is dismissed. August 08, 2025 Pankaj* -3- of the property has been ordered without deciding the applica Rule 66 CPC, thus, prays for setting aside of the impugned orders as mentioned Heard. A perusal of the record reveals that the compromise as alleged to be effected between the parties was between Paramjit Singh and Gurpreet Singh as st party and Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal and Jaspal Rai Singla as second party. The was not privy to the said compromise nor was he signatory to the compromise dated 30.01.2019. In the absence of any compromise, decree was passed in favour of the respondent-DH for recovery of Rs.12 lakhs along with interest @6% per annum from the petitioner-JD from 01.12.2014 till realization. As the petitioner failed to deposit the decretal amount along with interest, DH has submitted the property of p Court and thereafter, having left no other option, property of the petitioner jointly owned by him with his brother has been put to auction. In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the ugned orders dated 04.03.2025 and 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. Resultantly, the present revision petition is (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable of the property has been ordered without deciding the application under Orde Rule 66 CPC, thus, prays for setting aside of the impugned orders as mentioned A perusal of the record reveals that the compromise as alleged to be effected between the parties was between Paramjit Singh and Gurpreet Singh as st party and Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal and Jaspal Rai Singla as second party. The was not privy to the said compromise nor was he signatory to the compromise dated 30.01.2019. In the absence of any compromise, decree was for recovery of Rs.12 lakhs along with JD from 01.12.2014 till realization. As the petitioner failed to deposit the decretal amount along with interest, DH has submitted the property of petitioner-JD before the Executing Court and thereafter, having left no other option, property of the petitioner jointly owned by him with his brother has been put to auction. In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the ugned orders dated 04.03.2025 and 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. Resultantly, the present revision petition is AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No tion under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC, thus, prays for setting aside of the impugned orders as mentioned A perusal of the record reveals that the compromise as alleged to be effected between the parties was between Paramjit Singh and Gurpreet Singh as st party and Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal and Jaspal Rai Singla as second party. The was not privy to the said compromise nor was he signatory to the compromise dated 30.01.2019. In the absence of any compromise, decree was for recovery of Rs.12 lakhs along with JD from 01.12.2014 till realization. As the petitioner failed to deposit the decretal amount along with interest, JD before the Executing Court and thereafter, having left no other option, property of the petitioner jointly In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the ugned orders dated 04.03.2025 and 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. Resultantly, the present revision petition is AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh