High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 11 P&H CK 0043

Bant Singh (deceased) through LR Gurmail Singh vs Surinder Singh and others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 14 November 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raj Mohan Singh, J
RESULT
Disposed off
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 5376 of 2018(O&M)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 348 words

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

[1]. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.08.2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha, whereby the executing Court

directed the deposit of the decretal amount instead of security under Order 41 Rule 6(2) CPC.

[2]. Executing Court held that the application was filed at the fag end of the execution and termed the same to be mala fide exercise. Ultimately, the

application was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to deposit the decretal amount of Rs.12 lacs along with interest as per decree dated

29.11.2016 till date by way of depositing the same in the Government Treasury and submitting the challan on or before 24.08.2018. The said deposit

was termed to be a security which the Court has demanded under Order 41 Rule 6 CPC as a condition precedent to stay the sale proceedings.

[3]. At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 20.08.2018, following order was passed :-

“Learned counse for the petitioner contends that notice of motion was issued in RSA No.4415 of 2018 on 26.07.2018 and thereafter application

under Order 41 Rule 6 CPC was filed before the executing Court on 06.08.2018 for providing security to the decretal amount.

Notice of motion for 14.11.2018.

Till the next date of hearing, sale warrants may not be executed.â€​

[4]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that RSA No.4415 of 2018 is pending for 31.01.2019. Notice of motion has already been issued in the

aforesaid RSA.

[5]. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has shown willingness of the petitioner to furnish tangible security for the decretal

amount to the satisfaction of the executing Court till decision of pending RSA No.4415 of 2018. The aforesaid arrangement is acceptable to

respondent No.1.

[6]. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this revision petition is disposed of. Impugned order dated 06.08.2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Nabha is accordingly modified. Petitioner would furnish tangible security for the decretal amount to the satisfaction of the executing

Court within one month from today during pendency of RSA No.4415 of 2018.