CR-5810-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 121 Prem Aggarwal Mohan Singh and others CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra Mr. Mr. Ms. Radhika Deekshay, Advocate Ms. Shruti Singla, Advocate for the Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate for respondents. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL 1. The India for setting aside o dated 12.08.2025 Division) Chandigarh No.EXE/292/2025; possession and directed the concerned SHO to execute the same on or before 28.08.2025 as also order dated 18.08.2025 objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed 2. Succinctly storey residential building measuring two kanals situated in Sector 21 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5810 Reserved on:08.09.2025 Pronounced on:11.09.2025 Prem Aggarwal (since deceased) through her GPA holder Versus Mohan Singh and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate Ms. Radhika Deekshay, Advocate Ms. Shruti Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate for respondents. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. The present civil revision under Article 227 India for setting aside orders dated 07.08.2025(Annexure dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure P-6) whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chandigarh (for short Executing Court) No.EXE/292/2025; Mohan Singh versus Prem Aggarwal, ossession and directed the concerned SHO to execute the same on or before 28.08.2025 as also order dated 18.08.2025 objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed Succinctly, the facts of the case are storey residential building measuring two kanals situated in Sector 21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 5810-2025 (O&M) Reserved on:08.09.2025 Pronounced on:11.09.2025 GPA holder ... Petitioner ...Respondents AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Senior Advocate (through VC) Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Radhika Deekshay, Advocate present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of rders dated 07.08.2025(Annexure P-5) as well as order the learned Civil Judge (Junior (for short Executing Court) in Execution Case Mohan Singh versus Prem Aggarwal, has issued warrants of ossession and directed the concerned SHO to execute the same on or before 28.08.2025 as also order dated 18.08.2025(Annexure P-8), vide which objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed. the facts of the case are, that House No.1022, a two storey residential building measuring two kanals situated in Sector 21-B, of the Constitution of der the learned Civil Judge (Junior in Execution Case arrants of ossession and directed the concerned SHO to execute the same on or before , vide which that House No.1022, a two- B, PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O&M) Chandigarh, was originally owned by Late Shri Jagjit Singh and upon his demise in 1987, devolved upon his three (respondent No.1), Late Kuldeep Singh, On 12.06.1989, respondent no. sell the suit property to the petitioner (plaintiff) for a total consideratio Rs.14,50,000/-, receiving Rs.25,000/ agreement, both in his personal capacity and as attorney for his two brothers. Thereafter, on 22.02.1990, the petitioner of 1990 seeking permanent injunction against the respondents ( which was dismissed on 15.06.1990. On 11.06.1990, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No.552 of 1990 for specific performance of the agreement to sell, which was decreed in her favour on respondents (defendants Second Appeal No.1683 of 2014 was dismissed by affirming the decree of specific performance. The review application (R No.31 of 2022) was also dismissed on 29.08.2022, leading the respondents (defendants) to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court in appeal. 2.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 01.04.2025, allowed the appeals the earnest money of of the petitioner decree holders Chandigarh. The Executing Court, by orders dated 07.08.2025 and 12.08.2025, not only directed amount but also went further to issue warrants of possession 2025 (O&M) -2- Chandigarh, was originally owned by Late Shri Jagjit Singh and upon his demise in 1987, devolved upon his three o.1), Late Kuldeep Singh, and Paramjit Singh (respondent N On 12.06.1989, respondent no.1(defendant-appellant) sell the suit property to the petitioner (plaintiff) for a total consideratio , receiving Rs.25,000/- as earnest money, both in his personal capacity and as attorney for his two brothers. Thereafter, on 22.02.1990, the petitioner (plaintiff) ng permanent injunction against the respondents ( which was dismissed on 15.06.1990. On 11.06.1990, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No.552 of 1990 for specific performance of the agreement to sell, which was decreed in her favour on 11.12.2009. The appeal filed by the defendants) was dismissed on 19.09.2013. Their further Regular Second Appeal No.1683 of 2014 was dismissed by affirming the decree of specific performance. The review application (R No.31 of 2022) was also dismissed on 29.08.2022, leading the respondents ) to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court in appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 01.04.2025, allowed the appeals and set aside the decree of speci the earnest money of ₹25,000, awarded a compensation of ₹2 crores in favour of the petitioner (plaintiff). Thereafter, the respondents , filed an execution petition before the Executing Court Chandigarh. The Executing Court, by orders dated 07.08.2025 and 12.08.2025, not only directed the respondents (defendant amount but also went further to issue warrants of possession Chandigarh, was originally owned by Late Shri Jagjit Singh and upon his demise in 1987, devolved upon his three sons, namely Mohan Singh and Paramjit Singh (respondent No.3). appellant) executed an agreement to sell the suit property to the petitioner (plaintiff) for a total consideration of as earnest money, he then signed the both in his personal capacity and as attorney for his two brothers. (plaintiff) instituted Civil Suit No.44 ng permanent injunction against the respondents (defendants), which was dismissed on 15.06.1990. On 11.06.1990, the petitioner(plaintiff) filed Civil Suit No.552 of 1990 for specific performance of the agreement to 11.12.2009. The appeal filed by the ) was dismissed on 19.09.2013. Their further Regular Second Appeal No.1683 of 2014 was dismissed by this Court on 13.05.2022, affirming the decree of specific performance. The review application (R.A. No.31 of 2022) was also dismissed on 29.08.2022, leading the respondents ) to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court in appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 01.04.2025, decree of specific performance. In lieu of ₹25,000, awarded a compensation of ₹2 crores in favour . Thereafter, the respondents (defendants), being the etition before the Executing Court at Chandigarh. The Executing Court, by orders dated 07.08.2025 and 12.08.2025, ts) to deposit the compensation amount but also went further to issue warrants of possession against petitione Chandigarh, was originally owned by Late Shri Jagjit Singh and upon his namely Mohan Singh o.3). executed an agreement to n of the both in his personal capacity and as attorney for his two brothers. instituted Civil Suit No.44 ), (plaintiff) filed Civil Suit No.552 of 1990 for specific performance of the agreement to 11.12.2009. The appeal filed by the ) was dismissed on 19.09.2013. Their further Regular Court on 13.05.2022, .A. No.31 of 2022) was also dismissed on 29.08.2022, leading the respondents The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 01.04.2025, n lieu of ₹25,000, awarded a compensation of ₹2 crores in favour , being the at Chandigarh. The Executing Court, by orders dated 07.08.2025 and 12.08.2025, the compensation er PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O&M) (plaintiff) with police aid. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner the present revision petition herein above. 3. Learned petitioner (plaintiff) proceedings are wholly vide judgment dated 01.04.2025, had only passed a money decree for refund of ₹2 crores as compensation, without any direction for delivery of possession of House No.1022, Sector 21 travelled beyond its jurisdiction by issuing warrants of possession despite the absence of any such relief in the decree. Furthermore, the warrants issued are vague and inexecutable since the property is a two annexe, different portions of which are occupied by the petitioner third-party tenants. styled themselves as decree holders and concealed the pendency of another execution petition q In addition, Section 144 CPC has no application as the petitioner obtained possession under the agreement to sell and not by virtue of any decree. Lastly, it is argued that the Executing Court err payment of compensation, and therefore the impugned orders dated 07.08.2025, 12.08.2025, and 18.08.2025 are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. this regard is placed Murti Bhawani Mat Gammon India Ltd V 2025 (O&M) -3- with police aid. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner revision petition challenging the impugned orders Learned senior counsels assisted by assisting counsels (plaintiff), inter alia, contends proceedings are wholly misconceived inasmuch as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, judgment dated 01.04.2025, had only passed a money decree for refund of ₹2 crores as compensation, without any direction for delivery of possession of House No.1022, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh. Further, t travelled beyond its jurisdiction by issuing warrants of possession despite the absence of any such relief in the decree. Furthermore, the warrants issued are vague and inexecutable since the property is a two exe, different portions of which are occupied by the petitioner party tenants. It is pertinent to mention that styled themselves as decree holders and concealed the pendency of another execution petition qua the same property, thereby playing fraud upon the court. In addition, Section 144 CPC has no application as the petitioner obtained possession under the agreement to sell and not by virtue of any decree. Lastly, it is argued that the Executing Court erred in linking delivery of possession with payment of compensation, and therefore the impugned orders dated 07.08.2025, 12.08.2025, and 18.08.2025 are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the Ho Murti Bhawani Mata Mandir Vs. Ramesh and Others Gammon India Ltd Vs. M.S. Reddy & Co.(2004) 13 SCC 359, Rajbir V with police aid. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner (plaintiff) has filed challenging the impugned orders as enumerated s assisted by assisting counsels for the , contends that the impugned execution misconceived inasmuch as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, judgment dated 01.04.2025, had only passed a money decree for refund of ₹2 crores as compensation, without any direction for delivery of possession of B, Chandigarh. Further, the Executing Court travelled beyond its jurisdiction by issuing warrants of possession despite the absence of any such relief in the decree. Furthermore, the warrants issued are vague and inexecutable since the property is a two-storey building with an exe, different portions of which are occupied by the petitioner (plaintiff) and pertinent to mention that the respondents (defendants styled themselves as decree holders and concealed the pendency of another ua the same property, thereby playing fraud upon the court. In addition, Section 144 CPC has no application as the petitioner obtained possession under the agreement to sell and not by virtue of any decree. Lastly, it ed in linking delivery of possession with payment of compensation, and therefore the impugned orders dated 07.08.2025, 12.08.2025, and 18.08.2025 are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. Reliance in on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh and Others (2019) 3 SCC 707, . M.S. Reddy & Co.(2004) 13 SCC 359, Rajbir Vs. Suraj ed as enumerated for the that the impugned execution misconceived inasmuch as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, judgment dated 01.04.2025, had only passed a money decree for refund of ₹2 crores as compensation, without any direction for delivery of possession of he Executing Court travelled beyond its jurisdiction by issuing warrants of possession despite the absence of any such relief in the decree. Furthermore, the warrants issued are storey building with an and defendants) styled themselves as decree holders and concealed the pendency of another ua the same property, thereby playing fraud upon the court. In addition, Section 144 CPC has no application as the petitioner obtained possession under the agreement to sell and not by virtue of any decree. Lastly, it ed in linking delivery of possession with payment of compensation, and therefore the impugned orders dated 07.08.2025, Reliance in n’ble Supreme Court in (2019) 3 SCC 707, . Suraj PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O&M) Bhan and Another(2022) 14 SCC 609, C.F. Angadi V (1972) 1 SCC 191. 4. Learn Hon’ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the decree for specific performance has clearly recorded findings under paras 12 and 13 of its judgment that the petitioner had taken undue advantage of agreement to sell. Further, the Supreme Court awarded an extraordinary compensation of thereby recognising the harassment caused to the respondents Furthermore, the petitioner Supreme Court which was dismissed, but this fact was deliberately concealed in the present petition, thus the petitioner with clean hands. Subse the principle of restitution. In addition, it is urged that the court possesses inherent powers to order restitution even if not expressly invoked under Section 144 CPC. Lastly, it is contended that sinc (plaintiff) was only permissive under the agreement to sell and the decree for specific performance has been set aside, the respondents decree holders within the meaning of Section 2(3) CPC, are entitled t restitution of the property, and the impugned orders suffer no infirmity. Reliance in this regard is placed Supreme Court in SCC 380 and Indian Council (2011) 8 SCC 161. 2025 (O&M) -4- Bhan and Another(2022) 14 SCC 609, C.F. Angadi V (1972) 1 SCC 191. Learned counsel for the respondents Hon’ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the decree for specific performance clearly recorded findings under paras 12 and 13 of its judgment that the petitioner had taken undue advantage of possession delivered under the agreement to sell. Further, the Supreme Court awarded an extraordinary compensation of ₹2 crores against a meagre earnest money of ₹25,000 thereby recognising the harassment caused to the respondents re, the petitioner (plaintiff) has filed a review petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed, but this fact was deliberately concealed in the present petition, thus the petitioner (plaintiff) with clean hands. Subsequently, reliance is placed upon Section 144 CPC and the principle of restitution. In addition, it is urged that the court possesses inherent powers to order restitution even if not expressly invoked under Section 144 CPC. Lastly, it is contended that sinc was only permissive under the agreement to sell and the decree for specific performance has been set aside, the respondents decree holders within the meaning of Section 2(3) CPC, are entitled t restitution of the property, and the impugned orders suffer no infirmity. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kavita Trehan Vs. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd, (1994) 5 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union (2011) 8 SCC 161. Bhan and Another(2022) 14 SCC 609, C.F. Angadi Vs. Y.S. Hirannayya ed counsel for the respondents (defendants) submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the decree for specific performance clearly recorded findings under paras 12 and 13 of its judgment that the possession delivered under the agreement to sell. Further, the Supreme Court awarded an extraordinary ₹2 crores against a meagre earnest money of ₹25,000/- thereby recognising the harassment caused to the respondents (defendants) filed a review petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed, but this fact was deliberately concealed in (plaintiff) has not approached this Court quently, reliance is placed upon Section 144 CPC and the principle of restitution. In addition, it is urged that the court possesses inherent powers to order restitution even if not expressly invoked under Section 144 CPC. Lastly, it is contended that since the possession of petitioner was only permissive under the agreement to sell and the decree for specific performance has been set aside, the respondents (defendants), being decree holders within the meaning of Section 2(3) CPC, are entitled to restitution of the property, and the impugned orders suffer no infirmity. on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Kavita Trehan Vs. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd, (1994) 5 Legal Action Vs. Union of India . Y.S. Hirannayya that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the decree for specific performance clearly recorded findings under paras 12 and 13 of its judgment that the possession delivered under the agreement to sell. Further, the Supreme Court awarded an extraordinary -, (defendants). filed a review petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed, but this fact was deliberately concealed in has not approached this Court quently, reliance is placed upon Section 144 CPC and the principle of restitution. In addition, it is urged that the court possesses inherent powers to order restitution even if not expressly invoked under Section petitioner was only permissive under the agreement to sell and the decree for , being o restitution of the property, and the impugned orders suffer no infirmity. on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Kavita Trehan Vs. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd, (1994) 5 f India PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O&M) 5. Having heard learned counsel for the the record, with arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsels fo for specific performance was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that the suit for specific performance itself was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, as the petitioner (plaintiff) has consciously omitted to clai specific performance in the earlier suit filed for permanent injunction and thus, could not be permitted to raise the same cause in subsequent suit. 6. It is admitted case of the petitioner (plaintiff) that she was put in possession of the suit property kanals, in lieu of agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989 agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989 “9. That as there as two tenants already living in the premises, to facilitate the vacant possession of the tenanted area, the seller has delivered possession of the ground floor of the house. All original papers of the said house shall be passed on to the purchaser at the time of completion of the bargain.” 7. From the time of execution of the agreement to sell, two tenants were already living in the premises and the petitioner (plaintiff) was delivered possession of the ground floor of the house, thus, p delivered to the petitioner (plaintiff) vehemently contended that another execution petition has been preferred by the respondents-defendants titled as execution of judgment dated 09.05.2018 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, which was obtained by collusion and fraud on the basis of oral 2025 (O&M) -5- Having heard learned counsel for the with their able assistance, this Court arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsels fo for specific performance was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that the suit for specific performance itself was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, as the petitioner (plaintiff) has consciously omitted to clai specific performance in the earlier suit filed for permanent injunction and thus, could not be permitted to raise the same cause in subsequent suit. It is admitted case of the petitioner (plaintiff) that she was put in possession of the suit property, a two-storey residential building measuring 2 in lieu of agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989 agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989 is reproduced as under: “9. That as there as two tenants already living in the premises, to facilitate the vacant possession of the tenanted area, the seller has delivered possession of the ground floor of the house. All original papers of the said house shall be passed on to the purchaser at the time of completion of the bargain.” From a bare perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is crystal clear that at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, two tenants were already living in the premises and the petitioner (plaintiff) was delivered possession of the ground floor of the house, thus, possession of first floor and annexe was never delivered to the petitioner (plaintiff) as per agreement to sell vehemently contended that another execution petition has been preferred by the defendants titled as Mohan Singh a execution of judgment dated 09.05.2018 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, which was obtained by collusion and fraud on the basis of oral Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of this Court does not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsels for the petitioner. The decree for specific performance was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that the suit for specific performance itself was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, as the petitioner (plaintiff) has consciously omitted to claim specific performance in the earlier suit filed for permanent injunction and thus, could not be permitted to raise the same cause in subsequent suit. It is admitted case of the petitioner (plaintiff) that she was put in storey residential building measuring 2 in lieu of agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989. The relevant clause of reproduced as under:- “9. That as there as two tenants already living in the premises, to facilitate the vacant possession of the tenanted area, the seller has delivered possession of the ground floor of the house. All original papers of the said house shall be passed on to the purchaser at the time of completion of the bargain.” e perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is crystal clear that at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, two tenants were already living in the premises and the petitioner (plaintiff) was delivered possession of the ossession of first floor and annexe was never as per agreement to sell ibid. Though it is vehemently contended that another execution petition has been preferred by the Mohan Singh and others Vs. Vinod Goyal for execution of judgment dated 09.05.2018 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, which was obtained by collusion and fraud on the basis of oral upon perusal of does not find any force in the The decree for specific performance was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that the suit for specific performance itself was barred under Order 2 m specific performance in the earlier suit filed for permanent injunction and thus, It is admitted case of the petitioner (plaintiff) that she was put in storey residential building measuring 2 . The relevant clause of “9. That as there as two tenants already living in the premises, to facilitate the vacant possession of the tenanted area, the seller has delivered possession of the ground floor of the house. All original papers of the said house shall be passed on to the purchaser at the e perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is crystal clear that at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, two tenants were already living in the premises and the petitioner (plaintiff) was delivered possession of the ossession of first floor and annexe was never Though it is vehemently contended that another execution petition has been preferred by the for execution of judgment dated 09.05.2018 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, which was obtained by collusion and fraud on the basis of oral PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O&M) tenancy, as the basis of lease deed dated 28.07.2005 but the said lease deed has not seen light of the day. 8. The after almost 35 years, culminated into passing of judgment dated 01.04.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby decree for specific performance was set aside and a decree for refund of Rs.2 crores as compensation money was granted to know the ultimate fate of the various rungs of judicial review and it is not an exception but common phenomenon. That is why the Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in 1998 while passing judgment in the case of (1998) 4 SCC 543 circuitous routes, both on account of hierarchy of courts and the procedural law. Such persons are and can be dragged till the last ladder of the said hier only breathes fear of receiving the fruits of that justice for which he has been aspiring to receive. The reach this stage is in itself an achievement and satisfaction as he, by then has passed through a long ar replica of mountain terrain with ridges and furrows. When he is ready to take the bite of that fruit, he has to pass through the same terrain of the procedural law in the execution proceedings the moros receive it at his hands distance is deluded back into the horizon. The creation of the hierarchy of courts was for a reasonable objective for conferring greater satisfaction to the parties that errors, if any, by any of the lower courts under the scrutiny of a 2025 (O&M) -6- said Vinod Goyal was tenant of respondents basis of lease deed dated 28.07.2005 but the said lease deed has not seen light of The suit for specific performance after almost 35 years, culminated into passing of judgment dated 01.04.2025 by e Supreme Court whereby decree for specific performance was set aside and a decree for refund of Rs.2 crores as compensation money was granted to petitioner (plaintiff). It took 35 years know the ultimate fate of the dispute that arose between them various rungs of judicial review and it is not an exception but common That is why the Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in 1998 while passing judgment in the case of Shreenath and another Vs. Rajesh and (1998) 4 SCC 543 has observed as under:- “The seeker of justice many a time has to take long circuitous routes, both on account of hierarchy of courts and the procedural law. Such persons are and can be dragged till the last ladder of the said hierarchy for receiving justice but even here he only breathes fear of receiving the fruits of that justice for which he has been aspiring to receive. The reach this stage is in itself an achievement and satisfaction as he, by then has passed through a long arduous journey of the procedural law with many hurdles replica of mountain terrain with ridges and furrows. When he is ready to take the bite of that fruit, he has to pass through the same terrain of the procedural law in the execution proceedings the morose is writ large on his face. What looked inevitable to him to receive it at his hands distance is deluded back into the horizon. The creation of the hierarchy of courts was for a reasonable objective for conferring greater satisfaction to the parties that errors, if any, by any of the lower courts under the scrutiny of a said Vinod Goyal was tenant of respondents-defendants on the basis of lease deed dated 28.07.2005 but the said lease deed has not seen light of suit for specific performance was filed on 11.06.1990, which after almost 35 years, culminated into passing of judgment dated 01.04.2025 by e Supreme Court whereby decree for specific performance was set aside and a decree for refund of Rs.2 crores as compensation, in lieu of earnest It took 35 years for the parties to arose between them, after crossing various rungs of judicial review and it is not an exception but common That is why the Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in 1998 while Shreenath and another Vs. Rajesh and others The seeker of justice many a time has to take long circuitous routes, both on account of hierarchy of courts and the procedural law. Such persons are and can be dragged till the last archy for receiving justice but even here he only breathes fear of receiving the fruits of that justice for which he has been aspiring to receive. The reach this stage is in itself an achievement and satisfaction as he, by then has passed through a duous journey of the procedural law with many hurdles replica of mountain terrain with ridges and furrows. When he is ready to take the bite of that fruit, he has to pass through the same terrain of the procedural law in the execution proceedings the e is writ large on his face. What looked inevitable to him to receive it at his hands distance is deluded back into the horizon. The creation of the hierarchy of courts was for a reasonable objective for conferring greater satisfaction to the parties that errors, if any, by any of the lower courts under the scrutiny of a the basis of lease deed dated 28.07.2005 but the said lease deed has not seen light of was filed on 11.06.1990, which after almost 35 years, culminated into passing of judgment dated 01.04.2025 by e Supreme Court whereby decree for specific performance was set in lieu of earnest the parties to crossing various rungs of judicial review and it is not an exception but common That is why the Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in 1998 while others The seeker of justice many a time has to take long circuitous routes, both on account of hierarchy of courts and the procedural law. Such persons are and can be dragged till the last archy for receiving justice but even here he only breathes fear of receiving the fruits of that justice for which he has been aspiring to receive. The reach this stage is in itself an achievement and satisfaction as he, by then has passed through a duous journey of the procedural law with many hurdles replica of mountain terrain with ridges and furrows. When he is ready to take the bite of that fruit, he has to pass through the same terrain of the procedural law in the execution proceedings the e is writ large on his face. What looked inevitable to him to receive it at his hands distance is deluded back into the horizon. The creation of the hierarchy of courts was for a reasonable objective for conferring greater satisfaction to the parties that errors, if any, by any of the lower courts under the scrutiny of a PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O&M) higher court be rectified and long procedural laws also with good intention to exclude and filter out all unwanted who may be the cause of obstruction to such seeker in his journey to justi this obviously is one of the causes of delay in justice. Of course, under this pattern the party wrongfully gaining within permissible limits also stretches the litigation as much as possible. Thus this has been the cause of anxiety and concern of legislators and courts. How to eliminate such a long consuming justice? We must confess that we have still to go a long way before true satisfaction in this regard is received. Even after one reaches the stage of final decree, he has t passing through the ordained procedure in the execution proceedings before he receives the bowl of justice. 2. The courts within their limitation have been interpreting the procedural laws so as to conclude all possible disputes pertaining to the decretal property which is within its fold in an execution proceeding, i.e., including what may be raised later by w another bout of litigations through a fresh suit. Similarly legislatures equally are also endeavouring by amendments to achieve the same objective. The present case is one in this regard. Keeping this in view, we now proceed to examine the present ca 3. interpretation is possible, the one which curtails the procedure without eluding justice is to be adopted. The procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid of justice. Any interpretati which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. xxxx 9. The execution proceedings were initiated who were defendant the Hon’ble Supreme Court setting aside the decree of specific performance and passing a decree for refund of Rs.2 crores 2025 (O&M) -7- higher court be rectified and long procedural laws also with good intention to exclude and filter out all unwanted who may be the cause of obstruction to such seeker in his journey to justi this obviously is one of the causes of delay in justice. Of course, under this pattern the party wrongfully gaining within permissible limits also stretches the litigation as much as possible. Thus this has been the cause of anxiety and concern of legislators and courts. How to eliminate such a long consuming justice? We must confess that we have still to go a long way before true satisfaction in this regard is received. Even after one reaches the stage of final decree, he has t passing through the ordained procedure in the execution proceedings before he receives the bowl of justice. 2. The courts within their limitation have been interpreting the procedural laws so as to conclude all possible disputes pertaining to the decretal property which is within its fold in an execution proceeding, i.e., including what may be raised later by w another bout of litigations through a fresh suit. Similarly legislatures equally are also endeavouring by amendments to achieve the same objective. The present case is one in this regard. Keeping this in view, we now proceed to examine the present ca 3. In interpreting any procedural law, where more than one interpretation is possible, the one which curtails the procedure without eluding justice is to be adopted. The procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid of justice. Any interpretati which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. xxxx xxxx The execution proceedings were initiated defendants in the original suit and by virtue of judgment passed by Supreme Court setting aside the decree of specific performance and passing a decree for refund of Rs.2 crores as compensa higher court be rectified and long procedural laws also with good intention to exclude and filter out all unwanted who may be the cause of obstruction to such seeker in his journey to justice. But this obviously is one of the causes of delay in justice. Of course, under this pattern the party wrongfully gaining within permissible limits also stretches the litigation as much as possible. Thus this has been the cause of anxiety and concern of various authorities, legislators and courts. How to eliminate such a long consuming justice? We must confess that we have still to go a long way before true satisfaction in this regard is received. Even after one reaches the stage of final decree, he has to undergo a long distance by passing through the ordained procedure in the execution proceedings before he receives the bowl of justice. 2. The courts within their limitation have been interpreting the procedural laws so as to conclude all possible disputes pertaining to the decretal property which is within its fold in an execution proceeding, i.e., including what may be raised later by way of another bout of litigations through a fresh suit. Similarly legislatures equally are also endeavouring by amendments to achieve the same objective. The present case is one in this regard. Keeping this in view, we now proceed to examine the present case. In interpreting any procedural law, where more than one interpretation is possible, the one which curtails the procedure without eluding justice is to be adopted. The procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid of justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be xxxxx” The execution proceedings were initiated by the decree holders in the original suit and by virtue of judgment passed by Supreme Court setting aside the decree of specific performance and as compensation in lieu of earnest higher court be rectified and long procedural laws also with good intention to exclude and filter out all unwanted who may be the ce. But this obviously is one of the causes of delay in justice. Of course, under this pattern the party wrongfully gaining within permissible limits also stretches the litigation as much as possible. Thus this various authorities, legislators and courts. How to eliminate such a long consuming justice? We must confess that we have still to go a long way before true satisfaction in this regard is received. Even after one reaches o undergo a long distance by passing through the ordained procedure in the execution 2. The courts within their limitation have been interpreting the procedural laws so as to conclude all possible disputes pertaining to the decretal property which is within its fold in an execution ay of another bout of litigations through a fresh suit. Similarly legislatures equally are also endeavouring by amendments to achieve the same objective. The present case is one in this regard. se. In interpreting any procedural law, where more than one interpretation is possible, the one which curtails the procedure without eluding justice is to be adopted. The procedural law is on which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be s, in the original suit and by virtue of judgment passed by Supreme Court setting aside the decree of specific performance and tion in lieu of earnest PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O&M) money of Rs.25,000/ judgment debtor. absence of any explicit direction with respect to return respondents-defendant possession and the answer is in affirmative. Undoubtedly, the judgme by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is silent about possession of the suit property to be returned to the crore. But it is also undisputed that the possession of the suit property in and when decree of specific performance of aforesaid agreement to sell has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court agreement to sell time of execution of the agreement. The earnest money of Rs.25,000/ Rs.2 crores against the amount of Rs.25,000/ plaintiff enjoyed possession give back the possession 10. The argument is that Section 144 CPC applies to cases where a decree or an o reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceedings or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose passed the decree or order shall, on the application of any party entitled to benefit by way of restitution or otherwise, cause such restitution to be made as will, so far as may be, place the occupied; and since in the present case, there was no such decree qua 2025 (O&M) -8- of Rs.25,000/-, they became decree holder judgment debtor. Now the question arose before this Court is whether in the absence of any explicit direction with respect to return defendants, the Executing Court is justified in issuing warrants of possession and the answer is in affirmative. Undoubtedly, the judgme by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is silent about possession of the suit property to be returned to the respondents-defendants after crore. But it is also undisputed that the p possession of the suit property in terms of agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989 and when decree of specific performance of aforesaid agreement to sell has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court agreement to sell are required to be put in the same position time of execution of the agreement. The resp earnest money of Rs.25,000/- for almost 35 years and thus, Rs.2 crores against the amount of Rs.25,000/- plaintiff enjoyed possession of property for the aforesaid period, give back the possession on receipt of compensation of Rs.2 crores The argument advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner Section 144 CPC applies to cases where a decree or an o reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceedings or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose and in that situation passed the decree or order shall, on the application of any party entitled to benefit by way of restitution or otherwise, cause such restitution to be made as will, so far as may be, place the parties in the position which they would have and since in the present case, there was no such decree qua became decree holders and the plaintiff became the arose before this Court is whether in the absence of any explicit direction with respect to return of possession to the , the Executing Court is justified in issuing warrants of possession and the answer is in affirmative. Undoubtedly, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is silent about possession of the suit property to after getting compensation of Rs.2 petitioner-plaintiff was put into of agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989 and when decree of specific performance of aforesaid agreement to sell has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is axiomatic that parties to are required to be put in the same position as they were at the pondents-defendants had enjoyed for almost 35 years and thus, they have to return and conversely, since petitioner of property for the aforesaid period, she has to now on receipt of compensation of Rs.2 crores. by learned senior counsel for the petitioner Section 144 CPC applies to cases where a decree or an order is varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceedings or is set aside or modified and in that situation, the Court which passed the decree or order shall, on the application of any party entitled to any benefit by way of restitution or otherwise, cause such restitution to be made as parties in the position which they would have and since in the present case, there was no such decree qua and the plaintiff became the arose before this Court is whether in the possession to the , the Executing Court is justified in issuing warrants of nt passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is silent about possession of the suit property to getting compensation of Rs.2 plaintiff was put into of agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989 and when decree of specific performance of aforesaid agreement to sell has , it is axiomatic that parties to as they were at the had enjoyed to return r- he has to now by learned senior counsel for the petitioner rder is varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceedings or is set aside or modified , the Court which any benefit by way of restitution or otherwise, cause such restitution to be made as parties in the position which they would have and since in the present case, there was no such decree qua PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O&M) possession, principle already been discussed above, the lieu of agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989, which ceased to exist as on date, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supre specific performance has been set aside and the said judgment has attained finality. Therefore, once the agreement to sell is unenforeable judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court petitioner-plaintiff is required to be returned back to she is getting Rs.2 crores as compensation against the earnest money of Rs.25,000/-. It cannot be a win and that is possession in the present case attracted where against the fundamental principle of justice or equity and good conscience the unjust enrichment is basic to the subject of restituti linked together and restitution is frequently based upon the theory of just enrichment. If the argument of learned senior counsel to claim possession, for possession and again to continues for years and a litigant remains in suspense about till the last ladder next generation Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. Further Mandir’s case plaintiff was not even proved and therefore, there was no question to return the 2025 (O&M) -9- possession, principle of restitution cannot be applied, has no merit. already been discussed above, the petitioner-plaintiff lieu of agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989, which ceased to exist as on date, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supre specific performance has been set aside and the said judgment has attained Therefore, once the agreement to sell is unenforeable judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the possession received by th plaintiff is required to be returned back to he is getting Rs.2 crores as compensation against the earnest money of . It cannot be a win-win situation for h and that is possession in the present case. The principle of unjust enrichment is attracted where a person has received benefit of money or property of another against the fundamental principle of justice or equity and good conscience the unjust enrichment is basic to the subject of restituti linked together and restitution is frequently based upon the theory of just If the argument of learned senior counsel to claim possession, respondents-defendants will be forced to file ossession and again to take a long circuitous route, as the litigation continues for years and a litigant remains in suspense about till the last ladder of hierarchy of courts and sometimes generation. This cannot be true purport of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the judgment relied upon by him in Mandir’s case (supra) is not applicable, as in the said case plaintiff was not even proved and therefore, there was no question to return the of restitution cannot be applied, has no merit. As has plaintiff was put into possession in lieu of agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989, which ceased to exist as on date, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby decree for specific performance has been set aside and the said judgment has attained Therefore, once the agreement to sell is unenforeable in view of the , then the possession received by the plaintiff is required to be returned back to respondents-defendants, as he is getting Rs.2 crores as compensation against the earnest money of win situation for her. She has to lose something The principle of unjust enrichment is a person has received benefit of money or property of another against the fundamental principle of justice or equity and good conscience and the unjust enrichment is basic to the subject of restitution. They are usually linked together and restitution is frequently based upon the theory of just If the argument of learned senior counsels is to be accepted, then will be forced to file a separate suit rcuitous route, as the litigation continues for years and a litigant remains in suspense about the fate of his case and sometimes results unfolds to the cannot be true purport of the judgment passed by the , the judgment relied upon by him in Murti Bhawani Mata (supra) is not applicable, as in the said case possession of the plaintiff was not even proved and therefore, there was no question to return the As has was put into possession in lieu of agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989, which ceased to exist as on date, in me Court whereby decree for specific performance has been set aside and the said judgment has attained in view of the e , as he is getting Rs.2 crores as compensation against the earnest money of e has to lose something The principle of unjust enrichment is a person has received benefit of money or property of another and on. They are usually linked together and restitution is frequently based upon the theory of just is to be accepted, then separate suit rcuitous route, as the litigation the fate of his case results unfolds to the cannot be true purport of the judgment passed by the Murti Bhawani Mata possession of the plaintiff was not even proved and therefore, there was no question to return the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O&M) possession and in those circumstances, provisions of Section 144 CPC were not attracted, there being no variation or reversal of a decree or order. hand, it is undisputed that the of agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989. proposition of law that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and it has to execute the de the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of and Rajbir Vs. Suraj Bhan 12. It is decree, the Executing Court is competent to construe it in order to give effect to the true import and intention of the judgment the pleadings and the judgment (dead) through LRs Vs. Kanhiya Lal (dead) through LRs and others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 478 “4. iii. decree iv. In case where the language of the decree is capable of two interpretations, one of which assists the decree the fruits of the decree and the other prevents him from taking the benefits of the decree, the interpretation which as holder should be accepted. v. A decree is not to be rendered futile on technicalities. A rational approach is necessitated in cases where a decree has been the 2025 (O&M) -10- possession and in those circumstances, provisions of Section 144 CPC were not attracted, there being no variation or reversal of a decree or order. hand, it is undisputed that the petitioner-plaintif of agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989. There is no dispute to the settled proposition of law that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and it has to execute the decree in accordance with law and as it is, as has been held in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of . Suraj Bhan (supra), as referred to by learned senior counsel. t is trite that if there is any ambiguity in the language of the decree, the Executing Court is competent to construe it in order to give effect to the true import and intention of the judgment and if necessary, by the pleadings and the judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in (dead) through LRs Vs. Kanhiya Lal (dead) through LRs and others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 478 has observed as under:- “4. xxxx iii. The purpose of an execution proceeding is to enable the decree-holder to obtain the fruits of his iv. In case where the language of the decree is capable of two interpretations, one of which assists the decree the fruits of the decree and the other prevents him from taking the benefits of the decree, the interpretation which as holder should be accepted. v. A decree is not to be rendered futile on technicalities. A rational approach is necessitated in cases where a decree has been the possession and in those circumstances, provisions of Section 144 CPC were not attracted, there being no variation or reversal of a decree or order. In the case in ff was put in possession in terms There is no dispute to the settled proposition of law that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and it cree in accordance with law and as it is, as has been held in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gammon India Ltd as referred to by learned senior counsel. mbiguity in the language of the decree, the Executing Court is competent to construe it in order to give effect to and if necessary, by looking into The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaifuddin (dead) through LRs Vs. Kanhiya Lal (dead) through LRs and others 2023 xxxx The purpose of an execution proceeding is to enable the holder to obtain the fruits of his decree. iv. In case where the language of the decree is capable of two interpretations, one of which assists the decree-holder to obtain the fruits of the decree and the other prevents him from taking the benefits of the decree, the interpretation which assists the decree v. A decree is not to be rendered futile on technicalities. A rational approach is necessitated in cases where a decree has been the possession and in those circumstances, provisions of Section 144 CPC were not case in was put in possession in terms There is no dispute to the settled proposition of law that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and it cree in accordance with law and as it is, as has been held in Gammon India Ltd mbiguity in the language of the decree, the Executing Court is competent to construe it in order to give effect to into Shaifuddin (dead) through LRs Vs. Kanhiya Lal (dead) through LRs and others 2023 The purpose of an execution proceeding is to enable the iv. In case where the language of the decree is capable of two holder to obtain the fruits of the decree and the other prevents him from taking the sists the decree- v. A decree is not to be rendered futile on technicalities. A rational approach is necessitated in cases where a decree has been the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O&M) subject of prolonged litigation and a fair construction is to be given thereto. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh, (2014) 15 SCC 529 “21. for, then alone the question of any reference to the alternative relief wou ambiguity. Chhotamal v. the worst the decree can be said to be ambiguous. it is the duty of the executing court to construe the decree. For the purpose of interpreting a decree, when its terms are ambiguous, the court would certainly be entitled to look into the pleadings and the judgment….”] and consistently fol thereafter, even if there is any ambiguity, it is for the executing court to construe the decree if necessary after referring to the judgment. If sufficient guidance is not available even from the judgment, the court is even free to refer to the plea construe the true import of the decree. No doubt, the court cannot go behind the decree or beyond the decree. But while executing a decree for specific performance, the court, in case of any ambiguity, has necessarily to construe the decree give effect to the intention of the parties 2025 (O&M) -11- subject of prolonged litigation and a fair construction is to be given thereto.” Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in , (2014) 15 SCC 529 has held as under: 21. If the suit for specific performance is not decreed as prayed for, then alone the question of any reference to the alternative relief would arise. Therefore, there is no question of any ambiguity. As held by this Court in Chhotamal v. Kundomal Gangaram v. Kundomal Gangaram, AIR 1960 SC 388, p. 390, para 4: the worst the decree can be said to be ambiguous. it is the duty of the executing court to construe the decree. For the purpose of interpreting a decree, when its terms are ambiguous, the court would certainly be entitled to look into the pleadings and the judgment….”] and consistently fol thereafter, even if there is any ambiguity, it is for the executing court to construe the decree if necessary after referring to the judgment. If sufficient guidance is not available even from the judgment, the court is even free to refer to the plea construe the true import of the decree. No doubt, the court cannot go behind the decree or beyond the decree. But while executing a decree for specific performance, the court, in case of any ambiguity, has necessarily to construe the decree give effect to the intention of the parties subject of prolonged litigation and a fair construction is to be Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Kumar v. has held as under:- If the suit for specific performance is not decreed as prayed for, then alone the question of any reference to the alternative ld arise. Therefore, there is no question of any As held by this Court in Topanmal Kundomal Gangaram [Topanmal Chhotamal , AIR 1960 SC 388, p. 390, para 4: “4. At the worst the decree can be said to be ambiguous. In such a case it is the duty of the executing court to construe the decree. For the purpose of interpreting a decree, when its terms are ambiguous, the court would certainly be entitled to look into the pleadings and the judgment….”] and consistently followed thereafter, even if there is any ambiguity, it is for the executing court to construe the decree if necessary after referring to the judgment. If sufficient guidance is not available even from the judgment, the court is even free to refer to the pleadings so as to construe the true import of the decree. No doubt, the court cannot go behind the decree or beyond the decree. But while executing a decree for specific performance, the court, in case of any ambiguity, has necessarily to construe the decree so as to give effect to the intention of the parties….” subject of prolonged litigation and a fair construction is to be Rajinder Kumar v. If the suit for specific performance is not decreed as prayed for, then alone the question of any reference to the alternative ld arise. Therefore, there is no question of any Topanmal Topanmal Chhotamal . At In such a case it is the duty of the executing court to construe the decree. For the purpose of interpreting a decree, when its terms are ambiguous, the court would certainly be entitled to look into the lowed thereafter, even if there is any ambiguity, it is for the executing court to construe the decree if necessary after referring to the judgment. If sufficient guidance is not available even from the dings so as to construe the true import of the decree. No doubt, the court cannot go behind the decree or beyond the decree. But while executing a decree for specific performance, the court, in case of so as to PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O&M) 13. If in the decree for specific performance possession is inherent then in the case of denial of specific performance, if the possession has already been offered in terms of agreement to sell, the to the party opposite. Kavita Trehan’s case enshrined under Section 144 CPC, has held that law of restitution confined only to the jurisdiction of the Civ every authority, Tribunal or the Court has the power and jurisdiction to put a party back to the same position when a decree or an order is varied or reversed in appeal, revision or other proceedings. Furthermore, in para 183 of the said judgment, it is observed as under: “183. with an overlap, have to be viewed with reference to the two stages i.e. pre substantive law (or common law) right that the court will consider; but in the latter case, when the parties are before the Court and any act/omission, or simply passage of time, results in deprivation of one, or Court to levelise and do justice is independent and must be readily wielded, otherwise it will be allowing the Court’s own process, along with time delay, to do injustice.” 14. In the present case Court was both reasonable and reduced to a mere paper relief. The plea that the decree did not specifically direct delivery of possession cannot be accepted in the pecu circumstances, where the very foundation of the litigation was the agreement to sell under which possession had been transferred. The Executing Court, 2025 (O&M) -12- If in the decree for specific performance possession is inherent then in the case of denial of specific performance, if the possession has already been offered in terms of agreement to sell, the same ought to have been restored back to the party opposite. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment passed in Kavita Trehan’s case (supra), while dealing with the scope of restitution as enshrined under Section 144 CPC, has held that law of restitution confined only to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court but it is general law that every authority, Tribunal or the Court has the power and jurisdiction to put a party back to the same position when a decree or an order is varied or reversed revision or other proceedings. Furthermore, in para 183 of the said judgment, it is observed as under:- “183. We may add that restitution and unjust enrichment, along with an overlap, have to be viewed with reference to the two stages i.e. pre-suit and post-suit. In the former case, it becomes a substantive law (or common law) right that the court will consider; but in the latter case, when the parties are before the Court and any act/omission, or simply passage of time, results in deprivation of one, or unjust enrichment of the other, the jurisdiction of the Court to levelise and do justice is independent and must be readily wielded, otherwise it will be allowing the Court’s own process, along with time delay, to do injustice.” In the present case, the construction adopted by the Executing Court was both reasonable and equitable to ensure that the decree was not reduced to a mere paper relief. The plea that the decree did not specifically direct delivery of possession cannot be accepted in the pecu circumstances, where the very foundation of the litigation was the agreement to sell under which possession had been transferred. The Executing Court, If in the decree for specific performance possession is inherent then in the case of denial of specific performance, if the possession has already been same ought to have been restored back The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment passed in (supra), while dealing with the scope of restitution as enshrined under Section 144 CPC, has held that law of restitution is not il Court but it is general law that every authority, Tribunal or the Court has the power and jurisdiction to put a party back to the same position when a decree or an order is varied or reversed revision or other proceedings. Furthermore, in para 183 of the said We may add that restitution and unjust enrichment, along with an overlap, have to be viewed with reference to the two stages suit. In the former case, it becomes a substantive law (or common law) right that the court will consider; but in the latter case, when the parties are before the Court and any act/omission, or simply passage of time, results in deprivation unjust enrichment of the other, the jurisdiction of the Court to levelise and do justice is independent and must be readily wielded, otherwise it will be allowing the Court’s own process, along with time delay, to do injustice.” , the construction adopted by the Executing to ensure that the decree was not reduced to a mere paper relief. The plea that the decree did not specifically direct delivery of possession cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts and circumstances, where the very foundation of the litigation was the agreement to sell under which possession had been transferred. The Executing Court, If in the decree for specific performance possession is inherent then in the case of denial of specific performance, if the possession has already been same ought to have been restored back The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment passed in (supra), while dealing with the scope of restitution as is not il Court but it is general law that every authority, Tribunal or the Court has the power and jurisdiction to put a party back to the same position when a decree or an order is varied or reversed revision or other proceedings. Furthermore, in para 183 of the said We may add that restitution and unjust enrichment, along with an overlap, have to be viewed with reference to the two stages suit. In the former case, it becomes a substantive law (or common law) right that the court will consider; but in the latter case, when the parties are before the Court and any act/omission, or simply passage of time, results in deprivation unjust enrichment of the other, the jurisdiction of the Court to levelise and do justice is independent and must be readily wielded, otherwise it will be allowing the Court’s own process, , the construction adopted by the Executing to ensure that the decree was not reduced to a mere paper relief. The plea that the decree did not specifically liar facts and circumstances, where the very foundation of the litigation was the agreement to sell under which possession had been transferred. The Executing Court, PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5810-2025 (O&M) therefore, rightly issued warrants of possession so as to give complete effect to the judgment of the 15. As an upshot of above, 227 of the Consti and 12.08.2025 passed by the Executing Court are affirmed instant revision 16. Misc September 11, 2025 Pankaj* 2025 (O&M) -13- therefore, rightly issued warrants of possession so as to give complete effect to ment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As an upshot of above, no ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is made out and the impugned orders dated 07.08.2025 and 12.08.2025 passed by the Executing Court are affirmed petition stands dismissed. Miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable therefore, rightly issued warrants of possession so as to give complete effect to o ground for interference under Article the impugned orders dated 07.08.2025 and 12.08.2025 passed by the Executing Court are affirmed. Resultantly, the application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes : Yes therefore, rightly issued warrants of possession so as to give complete effect to o ground for interference under Article the impugned orders dated 07.08.2025 e PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh