Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 917 (PNJ)

Mohammad Yasin v. Baba Ujaggar Shah

2009-05-11

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2009
JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. - The suit of respondent No.1 for recovery of Rs.61,600/-along with interest at the rate of 1 ½ % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and 6% from the date of decree till realization along with costs was decreed against the petitioner. The said decree dated 28.5.2001 has attained finality. 2. Respondent No.1 filed an execution application in which objections were filed which were dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Patiala vide order dated 17.1.2006. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Patiala which was dismissed under Order 41 rule 17 CPC vide order dated 12.12.2006 as none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.1.2008, the Executing Court put the property of the petitioner on sale. 3. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner has vehemently argued that earlier, there was a compromise between the parties according to which the matter was sorted out and an agreement was effected between the parties on 1.8.2007 (Annexure P-5) and thus, the impugned order was bad in law. It is further averred in this petition that before putting the property to auction, the Court has not determined the value of the attached property and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. It is relevant to mention that there was an effort to settle the dispute between the parties on 28.4.2009. The petitioner offered to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/-in full and final satisfaction of the impugned decree. The petitioner was directed to bring the aforesaid amount as far as his offer to show his bona fides is concerned. However, today the petitioner has shown his inability to bring the amount. Thus, this Court is convinced that the petitioner has no intention to pay even the amount as per offer given by him and thereafter, the matter was heard on merits. 5. By referring to the provisions of Order 21 rule 64 CPC, counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court has to first decide whether it is necessary to put the entire property to sale or such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree. In support of this submission, he also placed reliance in the case of Sai Enterprises v. Bhimreddy Laxmaiah and another 2007(2) PLR 640. 6. In support of this submission, he also placed reliance in the case of Sai Enterprises v. Bhimreddy Laxmaiah and another 2007(2) PLR 640. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. There is no dispute with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid. However, in the case in hand, there is no material on record to substantiate the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the order dated 17.1.2006 passed by the Executing Court rejecting the objections would show that no such objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner as is now sought to be argued before this Court. Even from the perusal of the impugned order, it can be made out that no meaningful objection was raised by the petitioner and in fact vide impugned order, the petitioner was warned not to obstruct the auction proceedings. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed.