KARAM CHAND Vs. HARWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON receipt of a money decree dated passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Suit No. 37/2005, "Karam Chand vs Harwinder Singh" and sent by that Court to this Court in exercise of the powers under Order XX1 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure('C.P.C.' in short) for execution by this Court one Company by the name of M/s Cutting Edge Infrastructure Private Limited (hereinafter to be referred as the 'the objector') immediately moved the present objection petition under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. It is alleged in this objection petition that one of the two properties in Delhi which are sought to be attached and sold in execution of the decree against the judgment debtor i.e. house no.B-5/96, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi has been purchased by it from M/s Anant Raj Agencies Ltd., which Company had purchased it from the judgment debtor/ owner through a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell executed by the judgment debtor in its favour in the year 2003 and in execution the decree passed in that suit sale deed was executed in favour of the said Company on 3rd December,2009. Thereafter, the said Company sold the same to the objector Company vide sale deed dated 3rd September, 2010. So, the judgment debtor being no more the owner the aforesaid property it cannot be attached in the present execution proceedings, is what the objector claims in this petition.

(2.) THIS objection petition has been opposed by the decree holder.

(3.) AFTER receipt of the decree by this Court from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh the decree holder was even otherwise required to file a formal execution petition in this Court praying for attachment and sale of the aforesaid property of the judgment debtor but no execution petition has been filed by the decree holder in this Court and, therefore, for this reason also the objection petition filed by the objector Company is not maintainable. Order XXI Rule 58 CPC gets attracted only after some property is attached by the executing Court and someone wants the attachment to be revoked on the ground that the property attached could not be attached.