S.P BANGARH, J.
Petitioner is a Judgment Debtor before the executing Court.
The respondent/Decree Holder and one Jetha Nand filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.4.2002, that was allegedly executed by the petitioner in their favour. The petitioner described this agreement to sell as illegal, null and void and as a result of fraud. The pleas of the petitioner were not accepted and the suit was decreed against her (petitioner).
An execution application was filed by the respondent/Decree Holder against the present petitioner in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gidderbaha. During the pendency of this execution application, the petitioner, herein, filed a transfer application before the District Judge, Sri. Muktsar Sahib, on the grounds that she and one Poonam Devi are the owners in joint possession of the suit property; the respondent/Decree Holder and Jetha Nand are indulging in sale and purchase of property; the petitioner was not heard at any stage; the trial Court did not frame any issue qua the alternate relief of double the amount and she challenged the alleged agreement by filing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Objections were also filed by the petitioner before the executing Court below, that were dismissed. Appeal against the dismissal of the objections was filed before the Additional District Judge, Sri. Muktsar Sahib.
The executing Court passed the order for execution of the sale deed in respect of the suit property and a Stenographer was appointed Local Commissioner for execution of the sale deed and the execution application was adjourned to 23.8.2013 Appeal against the dismissal of her objections is still pending before the appellate Court. Karam Singh son of Hira Singh has been working as Carpenter. He is the real uncle of the respondent/Decree Holder. The said Karam Singh is a witness to the agreement in question. He worked at the house of Shri Mandeep Mittal, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gidderbaha, with whom the execution application has been pending. With the help of Karam Singh, the respondent/Decree Holder had approached the Presiding Officer (supra), who had taken some amount from the respondent/Decree Holder in order to favour him. So, it is alleged that the Presiding Officer (supra) has been favouring the respondent/Decree Holder and did not listen to the petitioner, as also did not consider her objections. The petitioner, thus, moved the transfer application alleging that the Presiding Officer is biased, therefore, the execution application may be transferred to some other Court.
Balwinder Singh (respondent/Decree Holder) opposed this application by filing written reply thereto that, indeed, he filed a suit for specific performance, that was decreed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Besides, before this, an appeal had been filed by the petitioner challenging the execution proceedings, as also, she had filed a civil suit for declaration challenging the agreement to sell, but the objections raised therein, have already been decided up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The respondent/Decree Holder further averred that in the pending execution application, a Local Commissioner was appointed for execution of the sale deed, that was executed. The respondent/Decree Holder denied that Karam Singh worked at the house of the Presiding Officer. He also denied other allegations and made a prayer for dismissal of the transfer application.
After hearing both the sides, the District Judge, Sri. Muktsar Sahib, vide order dated 26.10.2013 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the application of the petitioner.
Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition with a prayer for acceptance thereof and transfer of the execution application.
At the time of addressing arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments contained in the petition, but, there is no merit, therein, as no mala fide can be ascribed to the concerned Presiding Officer, who simply ordered the execution of sale deed through a Local Commissioner, in compliance of the judgment and decree that was passed against the petitioner. Even the objections raised by the petitioner were dismissed. The appellate Court is seized of the matter regarding dismissal of her objections by the executing Court. However, the fact remains that, whatever, has been done by the executing Court, has been done in a lawful manner. No other order could be passed by the executing Court except direction of execution of sale deed pursuant to the disputed agreement of sale on the basis of decree under execution, that was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The petitioner is acting in a most irresponsible manner. Even the executing Court has almost become defunct, as the judgment and decree almost stand executed and remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings that were conducted by the executing Court, but the proceedings pending before the executing Court below cannot be ordered to be transferred to any other Court. The District Judge, Sri. Muktsar Sahib, rightly dismissed the transfer application and rightly held that the executing Court shall proceed further in the execution application, in accordance with law, without any fear.
The impugned order passed by the District Judge is well reasoned. He is supposed to know the judicial working reputation of the Presiding Officer. When the District Judge has held that there is no mala fide on the part of the Presiding Officer of the executing Court in conducting proceedings in the execution application, it is arduous to take a different view than that has been taken by the District Judge in the impugned order, that ought to be and is, hereby, upheld and affirmed.
Resultantly, the revision petition fails and is, hereby, dismissed.