The Punjab and Haryana High Court clarified that where significant time has elapsed since an earlier property valuation order in a partition/execution matter, and all co-sharers consent to a higher current market value, the court can modify the earlier order to reflect the updated valuation. This judgment upholds consensual determination of asset value and provides practical guidance for future execution proceedings involving delayed valuations where all parties agree.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/3036/2025 of DHARAMPAL SINGH PHOGAT Vs SUNIL SINGH AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010764502025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on lower courts under territorial jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Modifies the impugned order of Civil Judge (JD), Rohtak, dated 09.05.2025 |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure, Partition/Execution, Valuation of Immovable Property |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
Where significant delay occurs after a property valuation order in partition/execution due to pending litigation, and all parties consent to adopting the updated market price, it is permissible for the court to modify the original assessment and direct parties accordingly. The value determined by consensus at the time of execution reflects fairness to the co-sharers and avoids irreparable loss due to outdated valuations. The petitioner’s share will be recalculated on the current agreed price, and on payment, petitioner relinquishes all rights in the property. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Earlier, property was valued at Rs. 40,000 per square meter and building cost at Rs. 14,00,000 by Civil Judge in 2019. Due to pending revision by respondents, order was not acted on. After 5+ years, the petitioner sought updated valuation in execution. Impugned order rejected this request. On revision, all parties agreed to new market price and to settlement of petitioner’s share accordingly. |
| Citations | None specified in the judgment |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts for similar partition/execution/postponed sale cases where parties consent |
| Overrules | Modifies the Civil Judge (JD), Rohtak’s order dated 09.05.2025 refusing revaluation |
| Follows | Established practises on consent orders and discretion in execution matters (as per facts in the judgment) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court allows reassessment of property value in partition/execution if all co-sharers consent, especially after material delay.
- Earlier valuation orders can be modified upon consent of parties to reflect current market realities.
- Lawyers should seek and record consent of all parties when pursuing such modifications to avoid protracted litigation and to prevent loss caused by outdated valuations.
- This approach avoids irreparable loss to the party seeking to realize their share at prevailing market value post long-pending litigation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner pointed out that property was valued in 2019, but due to a pending civil revision, the order was never executed, and market value had appreciated substantially.
- On petitioner’s application for updated auction/valuation, the trial court dismissed the plea.
- In revision before the High Court, all parties agreed on the current market value of Rs. 2.5 crores and undertook to settle the petitioner’s share accordingly.
- The High Court, considering the fairness and consent of the parties, modified the impugned order to fix the new valuation and direct payment.
- The court observed that such consensual modifications prevent irreparable loss and promote justice when there is substantial delay.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Highlighted the long delay since the 2019 valuation (Rs. 40,000/sq. meter + Rs. 14 Lakhs for building).
- Argued that, due to a 5+ year delay owing to a pending revision, property prices had increased and, hence, auction/settlement should be at current value.
- Sought that the petitioner’s 1/4th share be calculated at the current market price (Rs. 2.5 crores).
Respondents (No. 1 to 3):
- Agreed to petitioner’s proposal and undertook to pay petitioner his 1/4th share at the agreed current market value within a month.
- Consent recorded in open court.
Factual Background
The dispute stemmed from a family property partition. In 2019, the Civil Judge (JD), Rohtak assessed the property at Rs. 40,000 per sq. meter and building at Rs. 14,00,000, but this order could not be implemented due to a revision filed by respondents, which was dismissed only in 2024. More than five years after the initial valuation, the petitioner requested that the property be revalued for the purpose of auction or settlement at current prices, which the trial court refused. Upon revision, all co-sharers agreed on the new market value and payment to settle the petitioner’s share.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 151 CPC (inherent powers of court): Used for recalling earlier orders and enabling justice where procedures do not otherwise suffice.
- Article 227 Constitution of India: Supervisory jurisdiction to set aside or modify orders of courts below.
- Reviewed applicability of previous property valuation under Section 114 CPC (review), allowing modification with consent in execution proceedings due to material delay and changed circumstances.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court permitted consensual modification of execution/partition valuations where all co-sharers agreed in light of material passage of time.
- Revival of the dismissed petition through application under Section 151 CPC, restoring original proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Court followed and applied existing principles regarding consent orders and inherent powers for justice in execution/partition cases, with a new emphasis on consensual revaluation in case of delay.
Citations
No SCC, AIR, MANU, or other neutral citations specified in the judgment. No paragraph citations included. Status on reportability not expressly specified.