- (1.) C M-4261-CII-2012 For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by the affidavit, the delay of 137 days is condoned. CM stands disposed of. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. Prayer in this application is for impleding the applicant as petitioner No.2.
(2.) For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. Prayer in this revision petition is for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.02.2009, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner-objector against the execution of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 01.10.1994, have been dismissed. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-objector, submits that as per the agreement to sell dated 13.08.1985, the suit land was agreed to be sold to the respondent-plaintiff-decree holder. However, the parties did not perform the part of their agreement which necessitated plaintiff to file the suit for specific performance which ultimately resulted into passing of the ex parte judgment and decree aforementioned. However, during the pendency of the suit, vide two sale deeds dated 02.05.1990 and 07.10.1991, part of the property was agreed to be sold and exchanged hands, in these circumstances, the petitioner-objector filed the objections. The respondent-decree holder filed the first execution application dated 25.09.1996, during the pendency of the aforementioned execution application, the sale deed in respect of the suit property was registered. However, vide order dated 09.09.2006, the aforementioned execution application was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one and the second execution application was filed on 28.02.2007, whereby the possession as per the judgment and decree was sought. He submits that second execution application was barred as per Article 136 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the 1963 Act').
(3.) There is a complete bar from seeking the execution of the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court, in essence, the respondent-plaintiff is forbidden in law to seek the execution beyond the period of 12 years. However, the Executing Court in a most fallacious manner, dismissed the objections. Against the aforementioned order, an appeal was filed which also met with the same fate. In support of his contentions he has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by this Court in B.S. Industries Darapur and another V/s State Bank of Patiala, Hoshiarpur and others, 2014 173 PunLR 373.;