KARNAIL SINGH Vs. SHYAM SUNDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor challenging the order dtd. 19/11/2025 (Annx.5) passed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar in Execution Case No. 02/2010 (Shyam Sunder vs. Karnail Singh), whereby objection application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been rejected and the application of the respondent-decree holder under Sec. 151 of C.P.C. has been allowed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that the respondent instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell 10 bigha of land of his share situated in Chak No. 3 FC, Murabba No. 19, Kila Nos. 6 to 15. The relief sought in the suit was confined to execution of the sale deed and did not include possession. The petitioner contested the suit, contending that the land in question was joint and unpartitioned, and therefore, could not be specifically sold. The trial court, however, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent vide judgment dtd. 23/8/2002. Thereafter, execution proceedings were initiated. In the said execution proceedings, the respondent-decree holder filed an application under Sec. 151 of C.P.C. seeking delivery of possession on the ground that such relief is implicit in a decree for specific performance. The petitioner-judgment debtor opposed the same by filing objections under Sec. 47 of C.P.C., asserting that the decree did not grant possession and that the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the scope of the decree. It was further contended that the land being joint agricultural land, possession could not be delivered without partition and without impleading the co-sharers, and that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the revenue court and not the civil court. Despite these objections, the Executing Court allowed the application of the respondent-decree holder on 19/11/2025 and rejected the petitioner's objections.

(3.) It has further been submitted that, in the meanwhile, the sons of the petitioner have instituted a revenue suit in respect of the same land before the S.D.O. (Revenue), Sri Karanpur, wherein an interim temporary injunction dtd. 31/7/2024 is in operation. It has been contended that in view of the subsisting stay order, possession cannot be delivered. Additionally, the land in question is mortgaged with Punjab National Bank, which has not been impleaded as a party, thereby rendering the execution proceedings legally untenable.