CR-5756-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Parveen Rani Sanjeev Kumar CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Navkesh Singh Goraya, Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU 1. Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 05.07.2025, passed in Execution No. 861 of 2014 titled Bala and another Ludhiana, whereby the objections filed by herein) were dismissed. Brief Facts 2. The facts, in brief, are that Sanjeev Kumar (plaintiff/decree filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.02.2013, executed between plaintiff and defendant No.1 with regard to the suit property. necessary party on the ground that she was attorney of defendant No.1 and empowered to execute the sale deed of disputed agreement to sell. I pleaded that defendant No.1 failed also failed to execute the sale deed despite notice. 3. However, none appeared on behalf of defendants in the civil suit and accordingly they were proceeded against ex 24.04.2014. Thereafter, a (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Navkesh Singh Goraya, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated , passed in Execution No. 861 of 2014 titled Bala and another”, pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the objections filed by Judgment Debtor herein) were dismissed. The facts, in brief, are that Sanjeev Kumar (plaintiff/decree filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell 2013, executed between plaintiff and defendant No.1 with regard to roperty. Petitioner-Parveen Rani, was necessary party on the ground that she was attorney of defendant No.1 and owered to execute the sale deed of disputed agreement to sell. I pleaded that defendant No.1 failed to honour her promise and that defendant No.2 also failed to execute the sale deed despite notice. However, none appeared on behalf of defendants in the civil suit and accordingly they were proceeded against ex-parte Thereafter, an execution petition was filed -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5756-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 26.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Navkesh Singh Goraya, Advocate for the petitioner. Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated , passed in Execution No. 861 of 2014 titled “Sanjeev Kumar v. Ashu , pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Judgment Debtor No.2 (petitioner The facts, in brief, are that Sanjeev Kumar (plaintiff/decree-holder) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell 2013, executed between plaintiff and defendant No.1 with regard to Parveen Rani, was arrayed as defendant No.2, necessary party on the ground that she was attorney of defendant No.1 and owered to execute the sale deed of disputed agreement to sell. It was further to honour her promise and that defendant No.2 also failed to execute the sale deed despite notice. However, none appeared on behalf of defendants in the civil suit and parte vide judgment and decree dated n execution petition was filed. - Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated Sanjeev Kumar v. Ashu , pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), No.2 (petitioner holder) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell 2013, executed between plaintiff and defendant No.1 with regard to defendant No.2, a necessary party on the ground that she was attorney of defendant No.1 and further to honour her promise and that defendant No.2 However, none appeared on behalf of defendants in the civil suit and dated TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5756-2025 (O&M) 4. In the said execution petition, objections, whereby she has stated that passed against claims that she came to know execution application was filed parte decree behind their back summons were manipulated and incomplete address was deliberately mentioned to procure an ex parte order. 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree, which is still pending. contended that t is false and frivolous. nine years, electricity connection, possession. Her husband Darshan Kumar is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under a separate full and final agreement to sell executed by defendant No.1, besides a General Power of Attorney dated No.1 mortgaged the property wi Darshan Kumar has been paying instalments since 2014. possession rights have accrued in favour of her family and petitioner/judgment 5. The decree objections are not maintainable. proceedings but willfully absented her sell in favour of Darshan Kumar is fraudulent and afterthought to defeat plaintiff’s lawful rights. Plaintiff’s agreement dated is final and binding. (O&M) In the said execution petition, petitioner/ , whereby she has stated that an ex parte decree dated passed against her and defendant No.1, without d she came to know about the ex parte order execution application was filed and that decree- behind their back. The petitioner summons were manipulated and incomplete address was deliberately mentioned to procure an ex parte order. She has already filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree, which is still pending. contended that the agreement to sell dated 16.02.2013 is false and frivolous. She and her family are residing in the su electricity connection, Aadhaar cards and other documents show her Her husband Darshan Kumar is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under a separate full and final agreement to sell executed by defendant No.1, besides a General Power of Attorney dated No.1 mortgaged the property with Cholamandalam Finance for Darshan Kumar has been paying instalments since 2014. possession rights have accrued in favour of petitioner/judgment and any eviction would cause irreparable loss. petitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 sought dismissal of execution. The decree-holder opposed the objections contending that t objections are not maintainable. Judgment- proceedings but willfully absented herself. The alleged subsequent agreement to sell in favour of Darshan Kumar is fraudulent and afterthought to defeat plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s agreement dated 16.02. is final and binding. -2- petitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 filed an ex parte decree dated 24.04.2014 was defendant No.1, without due service of summons. She about the ex parte order only in 2022, when the -holder/plaintiff had obtained an ex . The petitioner/judgment-debtor alleges that summons were manipulated and incomplete address was deliberately mentioned to She has already filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree, which is still pending. It is furt 16.02.2013 in favour of Sanjeev Kumar She and her family are residing in the suit property for last adhaar cards and other documents show her Her husband Darshan Kumar is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under a separate full and final agreement to sell executed by defendant No.1, besides a General Power of Attorney dated 25.10.2013. Defendant th Cholamandalam Finance for ₹7 lakhs and Darshan Kumar has been paying instalments since 2014. Valuable ownership and petitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 and any eviction would cause irreparable loss. On these grounds, No.2 sought dismissal of execution. the objections contending that t -debtor No.2 was aware of the The alleged subsequent agreement to sell in favour of Darshan Kumar is fraudulent and afterthought to defeat plaintiff’s 16.02.2013 is valid and genuine; decree - debtor No.2 filed 2014 was ue service of summons. She only in 2022, when the holder/plaintiff had obtained an ex alleges that summons were manipulated and incomplete address was deliberately mentioned to She has already filed an application under Order IX Rule It is further in favour of Sanjeev Kumar it property for last adhaar cards and other documents show her Her husband Darshan Kumar is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under a separate full and final agreement to sell executed by Defendant ₹7 lakhs and Valuable ownership and No.2 and On these grounds, the objections contending that the No.2 was aware of the The alleged subsequent agreement to sell in favour of Darshan Kumar is fraudulent and afterthought to defeat plaintiff’s 2013 is valid and genuine; decree TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5756-2025 (O&M) Findings of Executing Co 6. The Executing Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the objections with the observations alleged agreement to sell in favour of her husband is subsequent to the plaintiff’s agreement dated 16 F are executed for the same property, the prior agreement prevails, while subsequent agreements cannot override the earlier one. attained finality and there is no Court cannot go behind the decree. being devoid of merit. Findings 7. This Court has carefully examined the record, the impugned order, and the submissions advan 8. It is undisputed that an ex parte decree dated 24 April 2014 has been passed in favour of decree has already filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC challenging the same. However, unles execute it. There is admittedly no stay order operating against the decree. 9. So far as the objection of JD No.2 that her husband Darshan Kumar had also obtained an agreement to sell fro she is in possession, the same cannot petition which is to be executed alleged agreement is subsequent to the agreement in favour of decree is well settled that a subsequent purchaser or agreement holder takes the property subject to prior rights. If Darshan Kumar claims enforceable rights under his (O&M) Findings of Executing Court The Executing Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the objections with the observations that judgment- alleged agreement to sell in favour of her husband is subsequent to the plaintiff’s agreement dated 16 February 2013. It is settled law that if two agreements to sell are executed for the same property, the prior agreement prevails, while subsequent agreements cannot override the earlier one. The decree dated attained finality and there is no stay order from any appellate court. The Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Accordingly, the objections were dismissed being devoid of merit. This Court has carefully examined the record, the impugned order, and the submissions advanced. It is undisputed that an ex parte decree dated 24 April 2014 has been passed in favour of decree-holder Sanjeev Kumar. has already filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC challenging the same. However, unless the ex parte decree is set aside, the Executing Court is bound to execute it. There is admittedly no stay order operating against the decree. So far as the objection of JD No.2 that her husband Darshan Kumar had also obtained an agreement to sell from defendant No.1 and that on that basis she is in possession, the same cannot form the basis petition which is to be executed as per judgment and decree dated 24.04.2014 alleged agreement is subsequent to the agreement in favour of decree is well settled that a subsequent purchaser or agreement holder takes the property subject to prior rights. If Darshan Kumar claims enforceable rights under his -3- The Executing Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the -debtor No.2 herself admits that her alleged agreement to sell in favour of her husband is subsequent to the plaintiff’s It is settled law that if two agreements to sell are executed for the same property, the prior agreement prevails, while subsequent The decree dated 24.04.2014 has stay order from any appellate court. The Executing Accordingly, the objections were dismissed This Court has carefully examined the record, the impugned order, It is undisputed that an ex parte decree dated 24 April 2014 has been holder Sanjeev Kumar. Petitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 has already filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC challenging the same. s the ex parte decree is set aside, the Executing Court is bound to execute it. There is admittedly no stay order operating against the decree. So far as the objection of JD No.2 that her husband Darshan Kumar m defendant No.1 and that on that basis form the basis to dismiss the execution as per judgment and decree dated 24.04.2014. The alleged agreement is subsequent to the agreement in favour of decree-holder. Law is well settled that a subsequent purchaser or agreement holder takes the property subject to prior rights. If Darshan Kumar claims enforceable rights under his - The Executing Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the No.2 herself admits that her alleged agreement to sell in favour of her husband is subsequent to the plaintiff’s It is settled law that if two agreements to sell are executed for the same property, the prior agreement prevails, while subsequent 2014 has stay order from any appellate court. The Executing Accordingly, the objections were dismissed This Court has carefully examined the record, the impugned order, It is undisputed that an ex parte decree dated 24 April 2014 has been No.2 has already filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC challenging the same. s the ex parte decree is set aside, the Executing Court is bound to So far as the objection of JD No.2 that her husband Darshan Kumar m defendant No.1 and that on that basis the execution . The holder. Law is well settled that a subsequent purchaser or agreement holder takes the property subject to prior rights. If Darshan Kumar claims enforceable rights under his TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5756-2025 (O&M) alleged agreement, the proper course performance. No such suit has been filed till date. 10. The plea of possession and improvements made by JD No.2 also cannot override a valid decree for specific performance. At bes of equity which may be considered in independent proceedings, but not grounds to defeat execution of a decree. 11. The plea of improper service of summons also cannot be adjudicated in execution. That issue is already sub judice in he Order IX Rule 13 cannot be gone into at the stage of execution. Conclusion 12. In light of the above considered view that the objections filed by wholly untenable. First Sanjeev Kumar has not been stayed, modified or set aside by any competent court. In absence of such order, bound to execute the decree. Second No.2 virtually amount to challenging the validity of the decree itself. It is settled law that an executing court cannot go behind the de sit in appeal over its correctness. The remedy of JD No.2 is in her pending Order IX Rule 13 application or by way of appeal, not by objections in execution. Thirdly petitioner/judgment (O&M) agreement, the proper course was to institute a separate suit for specific performance. No such suit has been filed till date. The plea of possession and improvements made by JD No.2 also cannot override a valid decree for specific performance. At bes of equity which may be considered in independent proceedings, but not grounds to defeat execution of a decree. The plea of improper service of summons also cannot be adjudicated in execution. That issue is already sub judice in he Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Executing Court rightly observed that such questions cannot be gone into at the stage of execution. In light of the above and on the following grounds ew that the objections filed by petitioner/judgment wholly untenable. Firstly, the decree dated 24.04. Sanjeev Kumar has not been stayed, modified or set aside by any competent court. In absence of such order, bound to execute the decree. Secondly, the objections raised by No.2 virtually amount to challenging the validity of the decree itself. It is settled law that an executing court cannot go behind the de sit in appeal over its correctness. The remedy of JD No.2 is in her pending Order IX Rule 13 application or by way of appeal, not by objections in execution. Thirdly, no independent suit has been filed by petitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 or her husband seeking specific -4- to institute a separate suit for specific performance. No such suit has been filed till date. The plea of possession and improvements made by JD No.2 also cannot override a valid decree for specific performance. At best, these are matters of equity which may be considered in independent proceedings, but not grounds to The plea of improper service of summons also cannot be adjudicated in execution. That issue is already sub judice in her pending application under . The Executing Court rightly observed that such questions and on the following grounds, this Court is of the petitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 are 24.04.2014 in favour of decree-holder Sanjeev Kumar has not been stayed, modified or set aside by any competent court. In absence of such order, the Executing Court is , the objections raised by the petitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 virtually amount to challenging the validity of the decree itself. It is settled law that an executing court cannot go behind the decree or sit in appeal over its correctness. The remedy of JD No.2 is in her pending Order IX Rule 13 application or by way of appeal, not by , no independent suit has been filed by No.2 or her husband seeking specific - to institute a separate suit for specific The plea of possession and improvements made by JD No.2 also t, these are matters of equity which may be considered in independent proceedings, but not grounds to The plea of improper service of summons also cannot be adjudicated application under . The Executing Court rightly observed that such questions , this Court is of the No.2 are holder Sanjeev Kumar has not been stayed, modified or set aside by any the Executing Court is debtor No.2 virtually amount to challenging the validity of the decree itself. cree or sit in appeal over its correctness. The remedy of JD No.2 is in her pending Order IX Rule 13 application or by way of appeal, not by , no independent suit has been filed by the No.2 or her husband seeking specific TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5756-2025 (O&M) performance of their alleged agreement. If they genuinely had enforceable rights, they ought to have pursued them in accordance with law. Having failed to do so, they cannot obstruct execution of a lawful decree under Fourthly matters for adjudication in proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Those cannot form the basis to resist execution. 13. Thus, the objections raised by not only baseless but also intended to delay the execution proceedings. They do not disclose any valid ground recognised in law to obstruct or nullify a decree which has attained finality. 14. Accordingly, this Court finds n impugned order dated 15. The revision petition is dismissed. The objections filed by petitioner/judgment rejected by the Executing Court. 16. No order as to costs. 17. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 26, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) performance of their alleged agreement. If they genuinely had enforceable rights, they ought to have pursued them in accordance with law. Having failed to do so, they cannot obstruct execution of a lawful decree under the garb of objections. Fourthly, the allegations of fraud or improper service of summons are matters for adjudication in proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Those cannot form the basis to resist execution. Thus, the objections raised by the petit not only baseless but also intended to delay the execution proceedings. They do not disclose any valid ground recognised in law to obstruct or nullify a decree which has attained finality. Accordingly, this Court finds n order dated 05.07.2025 passed by the Executing Court. The revision petition is dismissed. The objections filed by petitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 having no basis in law or fact, were rightly he Executing Court. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- performance of their alleged agreement. If they genuinely had enforceable rights, they ought to have pursued them in accordance with law. Having failed to do so, they cannot obstruct execution of a the garb of objections. allegations of fraud or improper service of summons are matters for adjudication in proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Those cannot form the basis to resist execution. the petitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 are not only baseless but also intended to delay the execution proceedings. They do not disclose any valid ground recognised in law to obstruct or nullify a decree which Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the 2025 passed by the Executing Court. The revision petition is dismissed. The objections filed by No.2 having no basis in law or fact, were rightly Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - performance of their alleged agreement. If they genuinely had enforceable rights, they ought to have pursued them in accordance with law. Having failed to do so, they cannot obstruct execution of a allegations of fraud or improper service of summons are matters for adjudication in proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. No.2 are not only baseless but also intended to delay the execution proceedings. They do not disclose any valid ground recognised in law to obstruct or nullify a decree which o illegality or perversity in the The revision petition is dismissed. The objections filed by the No.2 having no basis in law or fact, were rightly TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document