Sukhdev Kaur And Another vs Kuldeep Singh And Others

CR-7812-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No. 130
CR-7812-2026
Date of Decision: 04.11.2026
SUKHDEV KAUR AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners
Versus
KULDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present:- Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
*
MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)
1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the order dated
06.05.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, in
the execution petition, whereby the petitioner's application under Order XXI
Rule 90 read with Sections 47 and 151 CPC for setting aside the auction sale
was dismissed. The petitioner also seeks to set aside the subsequent order
dated 05.10.2026, whereby the petitioner's application under Section 151
CPC seeking permission to deposit the decretal amount towards full
satisfaction of the decree was dismissed and directions were issued for
issuance of the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser. The
petitioner further seeks consequential relief of setting aside the auction sale
and all proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, the
executing court, after hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
both parties, dismissed the application filed by the judgment debtors under
ANU
2026.11.05 09:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-7812-2026 2
Order XXI Rule 90 read with Sections 47 and 151 CPC, observing that the
judgment debtors had been appearing through counsel in the execution
proceedings since 06.10.2025 and were aware of the auction proceedings. It
further noted that the schedule of the sale, including the notice, munadi and
sale report, had been recorded in the zimni order dated 09.02.2026. The
court held that no separate notice to the judgment debtors at the time of
auction was necessary, as compliance with Order XXI Rule 66 CPC was
sufficient. It also observed that judgment debtors Nos. 1, 2 and 4 had failed
to appear when the matter was fixed for filing reply to the application and
had consequently been proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated
15.07.2025. The objection regarding exemption of the agricultural land from
attachment and sale under Section 60(1)(c) CPC had already been dealt with
by the predecessor court vide order dated 20.11.2025. Accordingly, finding
no merit in the application, the executing court dismissed the same.
3. The aforesaid order dated 06.05.2026 has been challenged by
the judgment debtors in the present revision petition, inter alia , on the
ground that the executing court failed to follow the proper procedure before
putting the property to auction. It is contended that no proper notice of the
proposed auction sale was issued to the judgment debtors, thereby depriving
them of an opportunity to raise objections and protect their interests in the
execution proceedings.
4. The matter being short, notice to the respondents is dispensed
with.
5. The present revision petition, insofar as it challenges the order
dated 06.05.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Patiala, dismissing the application under Order XXI Rule 90 read with
ANU
2026.11.05 09:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-7812-2026 3
Sections 47 and 151 CPC, is not maintainable. The impugned order is
appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(j) read with Order XXI Rule 92 CPC.
In the presence of an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal, the supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot ordinarily
be invoked as a substitute therefor. Accordingly, the challenge to the
aforesaid order is dismissed as not maintainable, leaving it open to the
petitioners to avail themselves of the remedy available in law.
6. Now, coming to the impugned order dated 05.10.2026, the
petitioners/JDs thereafter moved an application under Section 151 CPC
seeking permission to deposit the entire decretal amount, along with interest
and costs, by way of cheques towards full and final satisfaction of the
decree. It was averred that the petitioners had arranged the requisite funds
through their relatives and well-wishers and were ready and willing to
satisfy the decretal liability. In support of their request, they tendered three
cheques issued by Amrik Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Krishan Singh,
respectively, and undertook to deposit any further balance amount found
payable upon calculation by the executing court. They further contended that
the proposed deposit was being made bona fide and without prejudice to
their legal rights, with the object of satisfying the decree and bringing the
execution proceedings to an amicable conclusion. Accordingly, they sought
permission to deposit the cheques, adjustment of the realised amount
towards the decretal liability and deferment of further coercive execution
proceedings, including delivery of possession, until the amount was realised
and appropriated towards satisfaction of the decree.
7. The aforesaid application was contested by the decree-holder as
well as the auction purchaser.
ANU
2026.11.05 09:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-7812-2026 4
8. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Executing
Court, after hearing the contentions of the parties and perusing the record,
dismissed the application vide the impugned order dated 05.10.2026,
observing that the entire auction amount had already been paid by the
auction purchaser and that the cheques tendered by the judgment debtors,
allegedly issued by third parties, were not signed by the drawer and,
therefore, could not be treated as valid legal tenders. The Executing Court
further observed that the auction sale had already been confirmed vide order
dated 15.05.2026 and that judgment debtor No. 1 had been afforded ample
opportunity to satisfy the decretal liability, having appeared through counsel
throughout the execution proceedings and despite the matter having been
fixed for auction on three occasions. The Executing Court also observed that
the application appeared to have been filed merely to delay the execution
proceedings, as the judgment debtors could have deposited the decretal
amount in cash or through a demand draft instead of tendering unsigned
cheques belonging to third parties. It further noted that the earlier application
under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Sections 47 and 151 CPC for setting aside
the auction sale had already been dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2026.
Accordingly, the application under Section 151 CPC was dismissed and the
executing court directed issuance of the sale certificate in favour of the
auction purchaser.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners/judgment
debtors that the learned Executing Court gravely erred in dismissing the
application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to deposit the entire
decretal amount towards full satisfaction of the decree. It is submitted that
the petitioners had arranged the requisite funds through their relatives and
ANU
2026.11.05 09:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-7812-2026 5
well-wishers and had tendered three cheques issued by Amrik Singh,
Sukhdev Singh and Krishan Singh, respectively, for deposit before the
Court. The source of the funds was immaterial so long as the decretal
amount was made available for lawful disbursement to the decree holder. It
is further contended that the finding that the cheques had no value merely
because they were issued by third parties was legally unsustainable and that,
even if the learned Executing Court had any doubts regarding their validity
or presentation, an opportunity ought to have been afforded to the petitioners
to remove the alleged defects. Learned counsel further submits that the
auction purchaser had deposited the auction amount, but the sale certificate
had not yet been issued, and the Executing Court continued to retain control
over the execution proceedings. Therefore, the petitioners' offer to satisfy the
decree ought to have been considered on its merits rather than rejected on
technical grounds. It is also argued that the subsequent application under
Section 151 CPC was distinct from the earlier application under Order XXI
Rule 90 CPC, which challenged the legality of the auction proceedings, and
could not have been dismissed merely by relying upon the dismissal of the
earlier application. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order dated
05.10.2026 be set aside and the petitioners be permitted to deposit the entire
decretal amount, along with any balance found payable, towards satisfaction
of the decree.
10. I have considered this contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners and do not find myself in agreement with the same. The
subsequent offer made by the petitioners to deposit the decretal amount
cannot, by itself, furnish a ground to set aside the impugned order dated
05.10.2026. The rights of the auction purchaser had already crystallised
ANU
2026.11.05 09:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-7812-2026 6
upon confirmation of the auction sale, and the mere willingness of the
judgment debtors to satisfy the decree at a subsequent stage cannot be
permitted to defeat such accrued rights.
11. It is pertinent to note that the application under Section 151
CPC was moved after the auction sale had already been confirmed vide
order dated 15.05.2026. The auction purchaser had deposited the entire sale
consideration, and the learned Executing Court had directed issuance of the
sale certificate in his favour. In these circumstances, the petitioners could not
claim an indefeasible right to have the auction sale undone merely on the
basis of their subsequent offer to deposit the decretal amount. Furthermore,
the petitioners sought permission to deposit the decretal amount through
cheques issued by third parties. The fact that the cheques were issued by
relatives or well-wishers does not, in itself, render them invalid; however,
the petitioners were required to establish that the proposed deposit
constituted a valid and unconditional tender of the entire decretal liability.
The application, as presented, did not establish that the proposed payment
could lawfully operate to defeat the rights already acquired by the auction
purchaser.
12. It is also significant that the earlier application filed by the
petitioners under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC, read with Sections 47 and 151
CPC, seeking to set aside the auction sale, had already been dismissed vide
order dated 06.05.2026. The subsequent application under Section 151 CPC,
though couched as a prayer for permission to deposit the decretal amount,
could not be employed as an indirect means to reopen the concluded auction
proceedings or circumvent the consequences of the earlier order.
The object of execution proceedings is undoubtedly to secure satisfaction of
ANU
2026.11.05 09:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-7812-2026 7
the decree. However, such satisfaction has to be pursued in accordance with
law and cannot be permitted to operate to the prejudice of a third party
whose rights have already accrued through a confirmed sale. The learned
Executing Court, therefore, rightly declined to accept the petitioners' belated
offer and directed issuance of the sale certificate in favour of the auction
purchaser.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court find that the
learned Executing Court has committed no illegality, material irregularity or
jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order dated 05.10.2026. The
findings recorded by the learned Executing Court are based on a proper
appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and call for no
interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
14. Consequently, the present revision petition, being devoid of
merit, is hereby dismissed .
15. The impugned order dated 05.10.2026 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, is upheld. No order as to costs.
16. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
04.11.2026 JUDGE
Anu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ANU
2026.11.05 09:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh