Anil Kumar v. Munawwar Jamal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.07.2026 Anil Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

Munawwar Jamal ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present:

Ms. Aarushi Goel, Advocate for Mr. S.K.Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral) 1.

This is a petition for setting aside the order dated 19.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) whereby on an application for directing the Local Commissioner to obtain transfer permission in favour of decree holder from HSVP, Karnal, notice has been issued to the Administrator, HSVP, Karnal. 2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed in favour of the petitioner by making the following observations:

"14.

In view of my findings on above said issues, especially on issue No.1, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. The plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 13.05.2013 and additional agreement dated 30.05.2013 on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-. Defendant is directed to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff as per the terms and conditions of agreement on receipt of balance sale consideration within a period of two months, after obtaining the

-: 2 :- requisite transfer permission and completion certificate from the department, failing which plaintiff shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed through court of law. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance."

3.

Ms. Aarushi Goel, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that HSVP, Karnal, was not a party to the decree and hence, issuance of the notice to HSVP, Karnal, was not necessary and would only further delay the proceedings. She, however concedes that in compliance of decision dated 08.12.2018 (Annexure P-2), sale deed already stands executed in favour of the petitioner, however, a copy thereof has not been furnished to him. She further submits that the reason for non-furnishing of the copy of sale deed is that the requisite transfer permission has not been applied for, before execution of the sale deed. It is further submitted that the matter before the trial Court is pending for 10.07.2026. 4.

A perusal of the petition would show that no averment has been made disclosing the aforesaid factual aspect of execution of the sale deed and non-furnishing of a copy thereof to the petitioner. 5.

It is not disputed that the present petition has been directed against the order whereby notice simplicitor has been issued to the Administrator, HSVP, Karnal, which is the competent authority to grant the requisite tranfer permission, enabling the Sub-Registrar to complete the necessary formalities and issue the sale deed to the vendee. 6.

Keeping in veiw the totality of the aforesaid factual position and circumstances, and that pendency of the present petition would further delay the proceedings before the trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks

-: 3 :- withdrawal of this petition at this stage, and prays that a direction be given to the learned trial Court to dispose of the pending application expeditiously. 7.

The prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is reasonable and deserves to be accepted.

8.

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of as having been not pressed with a direction to the learned trial Court to dispose of the application for directing the Local Commissioner for obtaining transfer permission in favour of the decree holder from HSVP, Karnal, as expeditiously as possible and further not to grant any unnecessary/long adjournments.

(VIKAS SURI) July 01, 2026 JUDGE Varinder Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No