RSA-2744-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 113 Mohinder Singh S.K. Kaushik and others CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. for the *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL 1. The instant regular second appeal has been preferred judgment dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned 1 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned trial Court respondent No.1 2. In brief, the facts are that of the suit property vide judgment and decree dated 01.11.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram on the basis of 03.08.1961 and 07.12.1970 Plots No.6 and 7, comprised in Khasra No.141 and 142 of village Gurugram as well as for recovery of mesne profits with use and occupation charges calcul the tune of Rs.7.02 lakhs on the date of filing of the suit defendant No.4, as he claimed himself owner of the suit property through sale deeds dated 05.12.1973 and 06.02. the plaintiff, he did not vacate the property and entered into a lease agreement with defendant No.2 on behalf of defendants No.1 and 3. 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Date of Decision: Mohinder Singh Versus and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the appellant. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The instant regular second appeal has been preferred judgment dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned 1 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned trial Court t No.1-plaintiff, has been dismissed. In brief, the facts are that the respondent suit property vide judgment and decree dated 01.11.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram on the basis of 03.08.1961 and 07.12.1970. He filed the suit for possession of the suit property i.e. Plots No.6 and 7, comprised in Khasra No.141 and 142 of village Gurugram as well as for recovery of mesne profits with use and occupation charges calcul the tune of Rs.7.02 lakhs on the date of filing of the suit defendant No.4, as he claimed himself owner of the suit property through sale deeds dated 05.12.1973 and 06.02.1978 but despite passing of decree in favour of ff, he did not vacate the property and entered into a lease agreement with defendant No.2 on behalf of defendants No.1 and 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2744-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:08.08.2025 ... Appellant ... Respondent AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , Advocate The instant regular second appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court, Gurugram whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was declared owner suit property vide judgment and decree dated 01.11.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram on the basis of sale deeds dated . He filed the suit for possession of the suit property i.e. Plots No.6 and 7, comprised in Khasra No.141 and 142 of village Gurugram as well as for recovery of mesne profits with use and occupation charges calculated to the tune of Rs.7.02 lakhs on the date of filing of the suit against appellant defendant No.4, as he claimed himself owner of the suit property through sale but despite passing of decree in favour of ff, he did not vacate the property and entered into a lease agreement with defendant No.2 on behalf of defendants No.1 and 3. Defendant No.4 was receiv IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Appellant ... Respondents against the Appellate Court, Gurugram whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree suit filed by plaintiff was declared owner suit property vide judgment and decree dated 01.11.2007 passed by the sale deeds dated . He filed the suit for possession of the suit property i.e. Plots No.6 and 7, comprised in Khasra No.141 and 142 of village Gurugram as ated to appellant- defendant No.4, as he claimed himself owner of the suit property through sale but despite passing of decree in favour of ff, he did not vacate the property and entered into a lease agreement with Defendant No.4 was receiving PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2744-2025 monthly rent from defendants No.1 to 3 and despite being served a legal notice upon defendants, they paying monthly rent to defendant No.4. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court and the appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial second appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant compromise was arrived at between the GPA of respondent Basudev Bhardwaj and the appellant sought to be placed on record as Annexure A mentioned that GPA has received Rs.4 lakhs from consideration of the suit property and in the said compromise, it was stated that future the respondent No.1 property and that the appellant and one other have become absolute owner of the suit property. In this regard, attention of this Court is drawn towards the statement of Basudev Bhardwaj, being attorney of respondent No.1 to be placed on record as Annexure A and understood the compromise Ex.C1 and both parties shall be bound by it. He has no concern with in possession of the same. It is further submitted that since the compromise was effected outside the Court and as such, Order 21 Rule 2 CPC specifically provides that where decree has been adju of the decree holder to certify such payment or adjustment to the Court. It is also submitted that the learned Courts below did not appreciate the above fact and went on to wrongly decreeing the suit. 2025 (O&M) -2- monthly rent from defendants No.1 to 3 and despite being served a legal notice upon defendants, they did not accept the ownership of plaintiff and paying monthly rent to defendant No.4. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court and the appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Court has also been dismissed Learned counsel for the appellant compromise was arrived at between the GPA of respondent Basudev Bhardwaj and the appellant-defendant No.4 on sought to be placed on record as Annexure A- mentioned that GPA has received Rs.4 lakhs from consideration of the suit property and in the said compromise, it was stated that future the respondent No.1-plaintiff will have no right or interest in the suit property and that the appellant and one other have become absolute owner of the suit property. In this regard, attention of this Court is drawn towards the statement udev Bhardwaj, being attorney of respondent No.1 to be placed on record as Annexure A-7 wherein he stated that he had read, heard and understood the compromise Ex.C1 and both parties shall be bound by it. He has no concern with the land in dispute. Smt. Shakuntla and Mohinder are owners in possession of the same. It is further submitted that since the compromise was effected outside the Court and as such, Order 21 Rule 2 CPC specifically provides that where decree has been adjusted outside the Court in whole or in part, it is duty of the decree holder to certify such payment or adjustment to the Court. It is also submitted that the learned Courts below did not appreciate the above fact and went on to wrongly decreeing the suit. monthly rent from defendants No.1 to 3 and despite being served a legal notice did not accept the ownership of plaintiff and continued paying monthly rent to defendant No.4. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court and the appeal preferred against the said judgment and lso been dismissed. Hence, the regular Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that compromise was arrived at between the GPA of respondent No.1-plaintiff Sh. defendant No.4 on 26.04.2008, which is -5 and in the said compromise, it is mentioned that GPA has received Rs.4 lakhs from the present appellant as consideration of the suit property and in the said compromise, it was stated that plaintiff will have no right or interest in the suit property and that the appellant and one other have become absolute owner of the suit property. In this regard, attention of this Court is drawn towards the statement udev Bhardwaj, being attorney of respondent No.1-plaintiff, which is sought 7 wherein he stated that he had read, heard and understood the compromise Ex.C1 and both parties shall be bound by it. He Smt. Shakuntla and Mohinder are owners in possession of the same. It is further submitted that since the compromise was effected outside the Court and as such, Order 21 Rule 2 CPC specifically provides sted outside the Court in whole or in part, it is duty of the decree holder to certify such payment or adjustment to the Court. It is also submitted that the learned Courts below did not appreciate the above fact and went monthly rent from defendants No.1 to 3 and despite being served a legal notice continued paying monthly rent to defendant No.4. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court and the appeal preferred against the said judgment and Hence, the regular contends that a plaintiff Sh. , which is and in the said compromise, it is the present appellant as consideration of the suit property and in the said compromise, it was stated that in plaintiff will have no right or interest in the suit property and that the appellant and one other have become absolute owner of the suit property. In this regard, attention of this Court is drawn towards the statement plaintiff, which is sought 7 wherein he stated that he had read, heard and understood the compromise Ex.C1 and both parties shall be bound by it. He Smt. Shakuntla and Mohinder are owners in possession of the same. It is further submitted that since the compromise was effected outside the Court and as such, Order 21 Rule 2 CPC specifically provides sted outside the Court in whole or in part, it is duty of the decree holder to certify such payment or adjustment to the Court. It is also submitted that the learned Courts below did not appreciate the above fact and went PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2744-2025 4. Heard. 5. Having heard learned counsel for appellant, this Court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. As regards Order 21 Rule 2 CPC, it duly stands mentioned that if any adjustment has been made outside the Court in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree decree holder has to certify the Court regarding such adjustment. In the case in hand, it is incumbent upon the present appellant, Mohinder Singh to prove the fact that there was adj presented before the learned Courts below but the said compromise did not see light of the day either at the behest of the appellant respondent No.1 6. In view of illegality and irregularity in the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 7. Dismissed. 8. Pending misc. app August 08, 2025 Pankaj* 2025 (O&M) -3- Heard. Having heard learned counsel for appellant, this Court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. As regards Order 21 Rule 2 CPC, it duly stands mentioned that if any adjustment has been made Court in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree decree holder has to certify the Court regarding such adjustment. In the case in hand, it is incumbent upon the present appellant, Mohinder Singh to prove the fact that there was adjustment/compromise dated 26.04.2008 and the same was to be presented before the learned Courts below but the said compromise did not see light of the day either at the behest of the appellant respondent No.1-plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality and irregularity in the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Having heard learned counsel for appellant, this Court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. As regards Order 21 Rule 2 CPC, it duly stands mentioned that if any adjustment has been made Court in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree-holder, the decree holder has to certify the Court regarding such adjustment. In the case in hand, it is incumbent upon the present appellant, Mohinder Singh to prove the fact ustment/compromise dated 26.04.2008 and the same was to be presented before the learned Courts below but the said compromise did not see light of the day either at the behest of the appellant-defendant No.1 or the the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality and irregularity in the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. lication(s), if any, also stand dismissed. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No Having heard learned counsel for appellant, this Court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. As regards Order 21 Rule 2 CPC, it duly stands mentioned that if any adjustment has been made holder, the decree holder has to certify the Court regarding such adjustment. In the case in hand, it is incumbent upon the present appellant, Mohinder Singh to prove the fact ustment/compromise dated 26.04.2008 and the same was to be presented before the learned Courts below but the said compromise did not see defendant No.1 or the the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality and irregularity in the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 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