Ram Chand Gupta, J.@mdashThe present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 8.11.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amritsar, vide which issues were framed on the basis of objections filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 without deciding objection raised by the Petitioner-decree holder that in view of the fact that decree stands satisfied qua the judgment debtors and decree holder intends to withdraw the execution petition and as such third party objections, after decree has been satisfied, are not legally tenable.
2. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Executing Court.
3. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner-decree holder that he had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.3.1994 with regard to the suit property against Respondent-Defendants. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 2.9.2004 in favour of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration within a period of one month and Defendants were directed to execute the sale deed regarding the suit property within a period of one month thereafter. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, Defendants filed appeal before the Court of learned District Judge, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 7.11.2005.
4. As judgment-debtors failed to comply with the directions of the Court given in the judgment and decree dated 2.9.2004, Petitioner-decree holder filed an execution application and the sale-deed as per judgment and decree was executed in favour of Petitioner-Plaintiff on the intervention of the Court. Sale-deed is also registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Amritsar and decree-holder was also put in possession of the property in dispute. Learned Executing Court ordered for breaking open the locks and for demarcation of the disputed property. As per report of the Bailiff possession was also handed over to Petitioner-decree holder and hence, Petitioner-decree holder made a statement dated 13.9.2008 before the Executing Court that he had taken possession of the suit property and hence he be permitted to withdraw the execution petition.
5. Further contends that however after recording statement of Petitioner-decree holder that he intends to withdraw the execution petition, objection petition was filed by one Upkar Singh Khajala and Navpreet Singh Dhanju, since deceased through his L Rs and some other objectors challenging the competency of vendor to execute agreement to sell the land in dispute in favour of decree holder and hence they have prayed for dismissal of execution petition by accepting their objections.
6. Learned Executing Court vide order dated 13.9.2008, passed the following order:
Now case is adjourned to 7.10.2008 for consideration on the point as to whether on the statement of DH to withdraw the execution, execution is to be treated as dismissed as withdrawn or, this Court still has jurisdiction to entertain the objection or pass an order for filing separate suit.
7. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that however, instead of deciding the said question, as per order dated 13.9.2008, learned Executing Court framed issues on the objection petition of third party vide impugned order dated 8.11.2010.
8. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order dated 8.11.2010 is set aside. Learned Executing Court is directed to pass a speaking order deciding the question as per order dated 13.9.2008. Disposed of accordingly.
