LAWS(P&H)-2014-7-158

MOHINDER KAUR Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

Decided On July 15, 2014
MOHINDER KAUR Appellant
V/S
HARBHAJAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is against the order passed by the Executing Court on an application filed by the decree -holder for amendment of the execution application to plead that the sale be executed and possession be delivered of a particular khasra number.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the suit for specific performance was decreed on 26.2.1979 in respect of 18 kanals and 8 marals of land. The judgment -debtor had filed regular first appeal before this Court, which was dismissed on 12.3.2003. The decree was conditional in which the plaintiff was directed to deposit the sale consideration within two months and defendants were further directed to execute the sale deed within a stipulated time. At the time when the appeal was filed, an application was filed by the decree -holder/plaintiff to withdraw the amount deposited before the trial Court in terms of the decree. The Court allowed the application but ultimately, the appeal filed by the judgment debtor was dismissed. The decree -holder then filed execution application on 24.9.2004 and claimed only possession and did not ask for execution of sale deed. Later on, the decree -holder filed an application for depositing the amount of the balance sale consideration which was allowed by the Executing Court without notice on 18.8.2008. The said execution was withdrawn by the decree -holder and again filed execution on 20.09.2011 in which the judgment debtor filed an objection that the decree has become infructuous as the agreement stood rescinded in terms of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. However, the said objections were dismissed and against that order it is stated before me that the revision petition is pending before this Court. Now the decree -holder has filed the application for amendment of the execution application. The said amendment has been allowed on the ground that it is only explanatory in nature whereas learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the amendment cannot be allowed because the decree -holder had earlier filed the execution which was withdrawn by him without asking for execution of the sale deed and warrant of possession.