KAMLESH RANI NARANG Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal lays challenge to order dated 12.3.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Moga whereby the appeal preferred against order dated 2.12.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga (for brevity "the Executing Court") dismissing the objection petition preferred by the appellant, has been dismissed.

(2.) Gurdev Singh son of Bhajan Singh (hereinafter referred to as "decree holder") filed a suit against Jaswinder Singh son of Kartar Singh for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.1.1997 in regard to a plot measuring 06 marlas. The suit was decreed by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 22.1.2007 directing the defendant/judgment debtor to execute and register the sale deed within three months, on receipt of balance sale consideration. As the judgment debtor failed to comply with the decree, the decree holder filed an application for execution of the decree and the present appellant filed an objection petition primarily on the ground that she is a bona fide purchaser for value vide registered sale deed dated 20.3.2008. It was also averred that physical possession of the house in dispute was delivered to the objector at the time of sale. She obtained loan from Punjab and Sind Bank Moga on 26.9.2001 and got approved site plan from MC, Moga.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit property was sold by Sh. Jaswinder Singh on 20.3.2008 after a compromise was effected between the decree holder and the judgment debtor vide written panchayat compromise dated 19.3.2008 whereby the judgment debtor paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the decree holder. It is further submitted that the judgment debtor filed an objection petition on the basis of compromise deed dated 19.3.2008 but the same has been wrongly dismissed by the Executing Court. The Appellate Court committed a serious error by holding that as the decree in question is not a money decree, the same cannot be satisfied in the way as pleaded by the judgment debtor on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is argued that Order 21, Rule 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") deals with payment but also provides for adjustment and the payment or adjustment may be recorded as certified either by filing an application under Order 21, Rule 2 CPC or by way of an objection petition under Section 47 CPC as sub rule (3) of Rule 2 Order 21 is not applicable to the State of Punjab in view of State amendment whereby sub-Rule (3) has been omitted for the States of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of this Court Gurmit Singh v. Smt. Sushil Sethi, 1979 PunLJ 431.