SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. GURDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 28/10/2014 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Executing Court whereby the objection petition filed by the petitioners stands rejected.

(2.) A brief background of the litigation would be necessary in the present case. An agreement to sell dtd. 9/1/1997 was entered into qua House No.237 situated at Village Majri, Tehsil and District Panchkula for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,62,500.00. A suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff-decree holder (respondent No.1) wherein the present objectors were impleaded as defendant Nos.4 to 6 through their mother since they were minors at that time. The said defendants are stated to have attained majority during the pendency of the suit itself. In the written statement filed it was stated that the defendants (petitioners herein) were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. However, during the course of arguments before the Trial Court, it was argued on behalf of the defendants (petitioners herein) that they were minors at the time of the contract and, hence, the agreement to sell was bad in law inasmuch as no permission was taken from the Court prior to the sale of their property. The said argument was rejected by the Trial Court holding that in the written statement a specific stand had been taken by the defendants (petitioners herein) that they had ratified the contract and they specifically pleaded that they remained present before the Sub-Registrar on 13/11/1997, however, the plaintiff-decree holder (respondent No.1) did not turn up. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 12/11/2007 (Annexure P-2). The said judgment and decree was challenged by the defendants (petitioners herein) before the Appellate Court. Before the Appellate Court also the plea of minority was also raised. However, the appeal also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dtd. 21/4/2014. The said judgments and decrees attained finality.

(3.) It is pertinent to mention that in 2009 the petitioners herein filed a separate suit for declaration that the judgment and decree dtd. 12/11/2007 was illegal, null and void. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dtd. 12/2/2013 (Annexure P-3). Appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed on 11/12/2013 (Annexure P-4). Against the said judgments and decrees, RSA No.1350 of 2014 was filed in this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dtd. 11/3/2014 in order to challenge the judgment and decree dtd. 12/11/2007 by way of appeal.