-1- 121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4369-2026 Date of Decision: 22.05.2026 BANARSI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ....Petitioner Versus MELA RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present civil revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of Constitution of India by petitioner/judgment debtor being aggrieved by order dated 04.04.2026 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Naraingarh, District Ambala vide which the sale deed dated 22.08.2025 executed in favour of respondent/decree holder was set aside and respondent/decree holder was directed to execute a fresh draft sale deed qua the suit property in accordance with judgment and decree dated 07.01.1993, passed in favour of respondent/decree holder. Petitioner/judgment debtor is also aggrieved by subsequent order dated 07.05.2026 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Naraingarh, District Ambala, whereby draft sale deed was accepted. 2. Facts in the present case are not in dispute. Respondent/decree holder had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.05.25 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4369-2026 -2- 23.07.1984, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 07.01.1993. In pursuance to said judgment and decree in favour of respondent/decree holder, respondent/decree holder had preferred an execution, and in execution proceedings sale deed dated 22.08.2025 was ordered to be executed. Subsequently, petitioner/judgment debtor as well as respondent/decree holder both came to know that in sale deed executed on 22.08.2025 land measuring 7 marlas 8 sarsahi was excessively shown which was beyond the scope of the decree. 3. Accordingly, petitioner/judgment debtor and respondent/decree holder had moved an application. Respondent/decree holder had moved an application to relinquish excessive land measuring 7 marlas 8 sarsahi, whereas petitioner/judgment debtor had filed objection with regard to execution of sale deed beyond judgment and decree passed against petitioner/judgment debtor. 4. Learned Court below vide impugned order dated 04.04.2026 had concluded that in the present matter, sale deed has been executed beyond the judgment and decree, therefore, had declared sale deed dated 22.08.2025 to be null and void. The entire sale deed was declared null and void. However, petitioner/judgment debtor is interpreting the order of Court to the extent of 7 marlas 8 sarsahi only. The interpretation as given by petitioner/judgment debtor is totally wrong as sale deed dated 22.08.2025 was not declared null and void partly, but was declared null and void in totality and, therefore, respondent/decree holder was asked to file fresh draft sale deed qua suit property in accordance with the decree. 5. This liberty by executing Court, therefore, clearly makes out that sale deed dated 22.08.2025 does not survive at all and fresh sale deed in CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.05.25 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4369-2026 -3- accordance with judgment and decree is required to be executed as has been ordered by learned Executing Court and allowed vide subsequent order dated 07.05.2026. I do not find any error in orders passed by learned Executing Court. 6. Revision petition is without any merit, hence is dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 22.05.2026 JUDGE chiranjeev Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.05.25 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document