Surjit Kaur And ANR v. Balwinder Kaur And ORS

2024:PHHC:021550 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 8286 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.02.2024 Surjit Kaur and Another ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Balwinder Kaur (Now Deceased) through her Legal Represntatives and Others ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1.

In this revision petition, the petitioners assail the correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court on 23.09.2019 while dismissing their objection petition. It has come on the record that a suit for recovery of ₹5,00,000/- as damages was filed by the decree holders as compensation against Hardeep Singh alias Bittu for having murdered Dilbag Singh. The suit was filed in the year 2008 and was decreed on 26.09.2014. While decreeing the suit, the property of Hardeep Singh alias Bittu was attached. The petitioners claim that they are bonafide purchasers of the property for a valuable consideration as the property of Hardeep Singh alias Bittu was sold during the pendency of the suit and it changed various hands. 2.

At the time of arguments, the learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers and Hardeep DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2024.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2024:PHHC:021550 Civil Revision No. 8286 of 2019 (O&M) Singh alias Bittu, the judgment debtor, is owner of the land comprised in khewat No. 121/120, khatauni No. 147 and khasra No. 31//4(6-0). He refers to para 5 of the application for releasing the property of the objectors and attaching the property of Hardeep Singh, the judgment debtor, which reads as under:- "5.

That the Hardeep Singh still owner on the property Khewat No. 121/120, Khatoni No. 147, Khasra No. 31//4 (6-0) total land 6K-0M share of the property JD Hardeep Singh 7/8 out of 6K-0M."

3.

On being confronted with the impugned order, the learned counsel representing the petitioners admits that this aspect of the matter has not been examined by the Executing Court while passing the impugned order.

4.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel representing the petitioners prays for permission to withdraw the present revision petition in order to file an appropriate application before the Executing Court in this regard.

5.

Ordered accordingly.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge February 15, 2024 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2024.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document