IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 1694 of 2007. Date of Decision: 25th February, 2008. Saraswati Devi ....Petitioner through Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors.. ...Respondent through Mr. Punit Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar whereby ad-interim injunction has been declined to the petitioner as well as against the order dated 2.3.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Hisar, confirming the afore-stated order passed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner-plaintiff claims that Mangat Ram son of Jai Chand mortgaged his agricultural land along with possession to her in the year 1995. Mangat Ram had taken a loan of over Rs.10 lacs from Haryana Financial Corporation in 1988/1992. He having failed to repay the same, proceedings were initiated against him and pursuant Civil Revision No. 1694 of 2007. ::2:: thereto, a recovery certificate has been issued. In execution thereof, the subject property was also sought to be auctioned, thereby prompting the petitioner to file a civil suit for declaration to the effect that she being a mortgagee is entitled to retain possession of the subject property. Along with the suit, the petitioner also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC to restrain the respondents from auctioning the subject land but the same has been declined by the Courts below after observing that she being a mortgagee will have the first charge over the subject property and as such will be entitled to recover the mortgage amount if the property is sold. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that since the mortgagor has failed to redeem the mortgaged land within the stipulated time, the petitioner has become an absolute owner in possession thereof . After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the rival stand taken by them, but without expressing any views on merits of their contentions, I am of the considered view that it would not be expedient or desirable to auction the subject property without first deciding the rights, if any, accrued in favour of the petitioner due to alleged non-redemption of the mortgage by Mangat Ram. However, the aforesaid issue can not be effectively adjudicated unless Mangat Ram son of Jai Chand is also arrayed as one of the Civil Revision No. 303 of 2006. ::3:: defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to move an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the afore-stated Mangat Ram as a party-defendant within one week. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction that on an application moved by the petitioner to implead Mangat Ram as party-defendant, he may be impleaded as such and thereafter the issue as to what rights have accrued in favour of the petitioner in terms of the alleged mortgage deed dated 17.1.1995 and/or due to non-redemption thereof, be decided by the learned Civil Court as preliminary issues. Learned Civil Court shall make an endeavour to decide these issues as early as possible and preferably within six months. Till then, the subject property shall not be auctioned. Disposed of. February 25, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE