The court clarified that, with consent of parties, the prevailing market value of property can be adopted during execution in partition matters, modifying earlier valuations. This judgment affirms the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 to intervene and grant equitable relief when warranted by subsequent developments and party consensus. The ruling is binding authority within the Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction and is directly relevant for property and civil partition execution proceedings.
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 within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure, Property/Partition |
| Questions of Law | Can the court, under Article 227, modify valuation of property for partition/execution post earlier orders? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, can modify previous orders regarding property valuation for partition where parties consent and the current market price differs significantly from the earlier assessed value. The court recognized the parties’ agreement and equitable considerations as sufficient basis for settlement. Execution proceedings may proceed on current market value rather than outdated valuations if all parties are amenable. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner sought revised valuation for auction of his 1/4th share in a property, citing elapsed time and increased market rate. Respondents consented to paying 1/4th of the revised valuation. Previous application for review was dismissed by the Civil Judge, but the High Court intervened. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering Article 227 intervention in partition/execution valuation issues |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court expressly permits modification of property valuation during execution/partition proceedings where passage of time makes earlier assessments obsolete, provided parties consent.
- Article 227 can be invoked not only for correction of legal or procedural error but also to grant practical, equitable relief in response to changed circumstances.
- Consent and party agreement before the High Court can result in direct substantive directions for monetary compensation in lieu of physical partition.
- Practitioners may cite this as authority for reopening fixed valuations if subsequent delays or appellate processes have rendered initial values outdated.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner approached the High Court after the Executing Court refused to revise a property valuation set in 2019, arguing that the significant passage of time had caused that value to become obsolete.
- The High Court recognized the agreement of all parties to proceed at the updated market value and found that requiring disposition at the old value would result in irreparable loss to the petitioner.
- Under Article 227, the High Court exercised its power to modify the earlier order, emphasizing equitable and consensual resolution.
- The court’s directions explicitly replaced the original assessed value with the mutually agreed current market price for purposes of concluding the partition/auction process.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The 2019 property valuation was outdated and did not reflect current market conditions.
- Requested that auction or settlement reflect prevailing property prices to prevent irreparable loss.
- Sought 1/4th share of the updated value if respondents wished to purchase his share.
Respondents (No.1 to 3)
- Agreed to pay the petitioner 1/4th share of the mutually accepted current market value (Rs.2.50 crores).
- Confirmed willingness to settle the matter as proposed by the petitioner.
Factual Background
The petitioner and the respondents, who are siblings, were parties to a partition dispute concerning a property. Originally, the court (in 2019) assessed the property at Rs.40,000 per sq meter and the building at Rs.14 lakhs, but that valuation was not acted upon due to pending revision petitions. Over five years elapsed, during which the property value increased. The petitioner requested an updated auction/settlement value, which was resisted at the executing court but accepted at the High Court upon consent of all parties.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 227, Constitution of India: The High Court examined its supervisory scope, which extends not only to correction of jurisdictional error, but also to granting equitable relief for changed circumstances with party consent.
- Section 151 CPC: Application for revival of proceedings was allowed, demonstrating the use of inherent court powers for ends of justice.
- Section 114 CPC read with Section 151 CPC: Application for review of the 2019 order was noted as dismissed by the lower court, prompting the revision petition.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The High Court directly recorded and acted upon the parties’ consent to modified valuation within the execution proceedings, thus avoiding further delay.
- The order to revive the petition and recall earlier proceedings under Section 151 CPC streamlined the dispute without remitting to the lower court.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing principles regarding Article 227 powers and consent orders affirmed and clarified in execution/partition context.