NATHU RAM Vs. CHHOTU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment-debtor is before this court impugning the order dated 30.4.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby a direction was issued for grant of police help in execution of a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell. Police help was provided for delivery of possession.

(2.) Brief facts are that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell pertaining to the suit property with the respondent on 27.1.1998. The sale deed having not been registered within the time prescribed, the suit was filed for specific performance of agreement to sell. The same was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar on 9.6.2007. The judgment and decree of the trial court attained finality as no appeal was filed against the same. The sale deed having not been registered, the respondent-decree holder filed execution on 24.10.2007. In the aforesaid execution, the decree holder filed application on 20.4.2012 seeking restrain against the petitioner-judgment debtor from harvesting the wheat crop standing on the suit land as he had already deposited compensation for the standing crop in the court. While dismissing the application and considering the statement made by power of attorney holder of the decree holder and the concerned Kanungo, the learned court below directed for providing police help for execution of the warrant of possession of the property in dispute. The aforesaid order is impugned before this court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while dismissing the application filed by the decree-holder for restraining the petitioner-judgment debtor from harvesting the wheat crop, the learned court below could not have granted police help to the decree holder for execution of warrant of possession as no such prayer was made by the decree holder before the court below. If the respondent-decree holder was aggrieved against the rejection of his application for restraining the petitioner from harvesting the crop, he could have impugned the order before this court. He further submitted that the petitioner had filed objections on 30.4.2012 as have even been noticed in the impugned order. When the objections filed by the petitioner were still pending, police help could not have been provided for execution of warrant of possession.