SAROJ SINGLA Vs. VIKAS BHALLA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in the present execution second appeal is the judgment dated 8.3.2018, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri affirming the order dated 22.11.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide which third party objections filed by the present petitioner namely Saroj Singla were dismissed.

(2.) It comes out that decree holder-Bhachan Singh filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.7.2004. Suit was instituted on 24.1.2006 against defendant-judgment debtor No. 1-Vikas Bhalla stating that Vikas Bhalla had agreed to sell the house for consideration of Rs. 2.00 lacs. He had received Rs. 1,30,000/- as earnest money. Since Bhushan Parkash-defendant No. 2 had purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 19.6.2005, he was also made party. In the said suit, defendant No. 1 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte. Defendant-Judgment-debtor No. 2 appeared on some dates and filed the written statement. Later on he slip sway from the proceedings. Consequently ex-parte judgment and decree dated 16.10.2010 was passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.

(3.) In pursuance to the said judgment and decree dated 16.10.2010, execution was filed in which defendant-judgment debtor No. 2 filed objection whereas defendant-judgment debtor No. 1 proceeded against exparte. The objections filed by defendant-judgment debtor No. 2 were dismissed vide order dated 4.11.2014. Thereafter, on deposit of balance sale consideration, sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff by the Court. When the warrants of possession were issued, the present petitioner came forward and filed the objections stating that she has purchased the disputed property vide sale deed dated 6.7.2006 from judgment debtor No. 2 namely Bhushan Parkash. It was also claimed that petitioner is in possession of this property. She also claimed that there is a collusion between decree holder and defendants-judgment debtor No. 1 and 2. She also claimed that she is bona fide purchaser.