RAM DHARI Vs. KARTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the decree holder whose petition for execution is obstructed by judgment debtor's brother who pleads that he holds a sale in respect of very same property from the judgment debtor and that a sale was pursuant to an oral agreement in point of time to the plaintiff's agreement dated 22.12.2004. He is, therefore, to place his right under the sale as one arising by an anterior agreement and the sale must be taken to be pursuant to such an anterior agreement. The court has framed the issue on the objection raised and the decree holder is before this Court in revision.

(2.) Learned counsel would argue that the person who is causing obstruction is the brother of the judgment debtor and his own sale deed was said to have been written on 22.03.2006 when the plaintiff suit was instituted on 10.03.2006. Since the purchase subsequent to the suit for specific performance, the objection cannot be entertained by the Court and the Court has no reason to set the case for any trial on issues. On the other hand, the further process in execution must proceed after rejecting the objection taken by the judgment debtor's brother. The counsel would refer me to a decision of this Court in Bikram Singh Vs. Surjit Singh, 2004 (3) PLR 129 , in support of this contention that such an objection cannot be entertained.

(3.) I have gone through the judgment referred to by the counsel. It was also a case for specific performance which had been decreed and an objection had been taken by the judgment debtor himself that it is for residential use and exempted under Sec. 60 (I) (ccc) of the CPC. The objection had been taken by the sons of the judgment debtor and the Court said that objection must be taken as frivolous and it is not necessary for the Court to even frame an issue to grant the opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.