CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ashok Kumar vs Baldev Singh and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 16 November 2010 · Citation: (2010) 11 P&H CK 0313

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mahesh Grover, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CR No. 7458 of 2010 (O and M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 392 words

Mahesh Grover, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 11.10.2010 by which the Executing Court has directed the execution of decree in terms of the registration of a sale deed qua the share of the Petitioner.

2.

The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the Executing Court is ambiguous as it does not specifically describe the area which is to be sold by way of execution of a sale deed in favour of the Respondents.

3.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have perused the material on record.

4.

The decree which is sought to be executed was pursuant to the judgment rendered by this Court in RSA No. 3487 of 2007 decided on 2.3.2009 and while disposing of the RSA No. 3487 of 2007 this Court had observed as follows:

In this view of the matter, the appeal is accepted and it is held that the Appellants shall be entitled to the share of Ashok Kumar who had accepted the sale consideration pursuant to the agreement to sell dated 19.7.2002 and the decrees of the Courts below are modified to the extent that the Appellants shall be entitled to enforce the said agreement to sell qua the share of Ashok Kumar by getting the same partitioned in accordance with law. He shall also not claim recovery of any amount already paid to the vendor.

5.

Vide the impugned order the Executing Court has merely ordered the execution of the decree in the aforesaid terms which is evident from the following extract:

The Plaintiff-decre-holders are entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered in their favour as per the share of Ashok Kumar in the suit land. Therefore, JD-Defendant is directed to execute registered sale deed in favour of Plaintiff-decree-holders qua his share in the suit land upto 15.11.2010. With these observations the objection petition filed by the J.D-Defendant is disposed of.

6.

Therefore in the opinion of this Court, there is no ambiguity or error of jurisdiction committed by the Executing Court in directing the execution of the sale deed qua the share of Ashok Kumar. The objections were thus rightly dismissed and in the absence of any error of jurisdiction or illegality, the revision petition is held to be without any merit and hence dismissed.