VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 28.11.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Fatehgarh Sahib dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner against an execution of the decree in favour of the decree-holder and the order dated 5.11.2006 of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) dismissing the appeal.
(2.) THE learned executing court came to the conclusion that the decree was passed in favour of the decree holder in pursuance to the agreement to sell which was passed prior to attachment and had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Vannarakkal Mallalathil Sreedharan v. Chandramaath Balakrishnan and another, 1990(1) RRR 366 (SC) : 1990 Civil Court Cases 526. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the provision of Section 64 C.P.C, as amended the agreement to sell could not have been taken note of to defeat the rights of the petitioner. For this contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, 2005(3) RCR(Civil) 530 (SC) : 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 420 (SC). However, the learned executing Court has taken into consideration the amended provisions and has held that the same would not apply retrospectively to the cases where the agreement to sell was executed prior to such amendment. Accordingly, it was held that the amendment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Courts below which may call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed on merit as well as on account of delay. Petition dismissed.;