- (1.) This execution second appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.4.2005 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Barnala vide which the appeal filed by the decree holder against the acceptance of the objections by the executing Court was dismissed.
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the executing Court has released the property belonging to the objectors on the ground that it was only the property of the judgment-debtor which could have been attached for the purposes of sale and not of second party. However, the said order has been set aside by learned Addl. District Judge, Barnala merely on the ground that the objectors purchased the property in a very hurried and haste manner. It also took note of the fact that no consideration was paid before the Sub Registrar.
(3.) I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and find that the impugned order cannot be sustained as no finding has been recorded by the learned appellate Court that transfer is sham and was with an object to defeat the decree. In the absence of any such finding it was not open to the lower appellate Court to set aside an order passed by the executing Court holding therein that the property of third party could not be attached. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. The case is remanded back to the lower appellate Court to proceed in accordance with law and decide the appeal, no merits. Disposed of accordingly. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 5.9.2006.;