SWGLEBENCtt ^~ ^ ~ (^/^. (t/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.2--l^8 QF 2005 PETITIQNER: Judgment Debtor Syed Sadrul Hassan, son of Syed Jamalul Hassan, Adult,53y^^ Proprietor- City Tyre Works, Anand % resident of vs Sd/- A.R.(J) ^ RESPONDENTS: Decree Holder /.^ ^' Judgment Debtor^ ^r" ?^^-{- .a nnrcliasjer y:. Bajrang Nagar, Raipur. 1,. State Bank of India, through the Branch lr Manager, Branch office at Kutchery Chowk, Raipur. 2^qbal Ahmed Siddiqui, son of Shri Amin Ahmed Siddique, resident of 2,3, New Bonibay Market, Raipur. 3. Nityanand Nirmal, son of Ravidatta Nirmal, resident of Aamapara, Raipur. 4. Naseeba Parveen, wife of Syed Sadrul Hassan, resident of St. Pal School, Byran Bazar, Raipur. 5. Dev Kumar Mukherjee, resident of Byran Bazar, Raipur. ./[ahmood Iqbal, son of Not / Known, resident of Sanjay { Nagar, Raipur. .'/ . Pooran Singh, son of Shri Premnath, aged about 29 ^ years, resident of Station o'^ Road, near Badapara; Raipur. ^' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FQRJTBLE^SSUANCE OF WMTS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTORAM AND /OR ORDERtSt AND /OR DIRECTION(S) IN THE NATURE OF WRITS. m -jtf ^ c". ^' .^^^^. ^:^ ^' ^ ^ ^^ ^'s- ^ ^.i fi ^ ...^ x ^' t ^ .^ o- \.v iA ^- ^- ^^ 1€ ^^r? ^ l? ^ ^' ^, ^-^ ^ ^. J?^ ^' -^- ^_ ^^^ '^ ^ !- ^ ^ <<J ^.. l/'M ^ ^ &L. l^ ^ 1 -^ <^ ^ g' $ ^ t •••1 '^ ^ ^•^: ^' ^ ,c\ S -, -^, • ^- ^ ^ 1 'ii zy' ST C' ^ © € ; j tit.^ g 1 ^ w ^ s § ®jo e ^ l' B ' ^^ ^ ^<f » " (.<- a v % & ^ ft t S @ ffi ^ -^ !j ^ ^ 1 ^^ t-i.^ ^ I ^ I l' s Q S w S m ti -?^j 8 I 8 t <» <» ? r '^ •s.^ .Vt '^ .^^%.^^ ^ ' ^^ ^ ^ ' '^ ^ H!GH OF AT Sjnale Bench: Hon'bie Shrl -Justice Prashant Kumar PETITIONER W.P. No. 2768/200.5 Syed Sadrul Hassan. RESEO_NDENJS Ver^ys State Bank of Indla & Ors. WR(T PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 226^27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF Appearance: Shri B.P. Shanna, counse! forthe pstitioner/judgment debtor. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Shri Sourabh Shamia; couRsel Ibr respondent-l/decree hoider. Shri Majumdar for legal heir of respondent no.6/auction purchaser. None for respondents 2 to 5. (19.04.2010) I.A. No. 9567/2005 for impleadment of the legal heir's of deceased petitioner Syed Sadrul Hassan. Not opposed. I..A. No. 9567/05 is allowed. Necessar)7 correction shall be made withiti 3 days. LA. No.3, This is an application for impleadnient of lega! hsir's of '\<' deceased respondent no.6. •STi:^'^sa^iw-w-^vc<is»k '"^r^^' ^ Not opposed. Shri Anup Majumdar, coimsel has aiready filed Vakalatnama on behalf of proposed legal heirs of decsased respondent no.6. I.A.No.3 is allowed. Necessary correction in tbe caiise title shall be made within 3 days. LA. No.4 This is an. application filed by the respoadent no,6/auction purchaser, who is now represented by his legal heirs, It is common ground that the petitioner sufiered a decree at the instance of plaintitY bank directing him to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- byjudgment and dscree dated 30th Aprii, 1993. In eourse of the execution of the said decrefc the subject propert}7 was purchassd in auction by the respondent no,6. By the impugned order the prayer of the auction piirchaser for extension of time to deposit part ofthe auction moaey has been a-Howed. The petition-er submits that the entire decretal aniount has now been deposited in tlw E-xecuting Court and if t-he respondent no.l/dec.ree hoider feels that any amount is remaining to be paid, he is also willing to deposit that amoimt. According to him decree has been tully satisfied, In view ofthe statement, the ayction purchaser submits that he may be allowed to withdraw the amount which he has deposited at the time of submitting his bid and purchasing the propert^/ in execution. The judgment dsbtor has no obje©tionto tfais prayer of the respoadent no.6. However, counsel for the decree holder submits that unless and until it is decided that the decree has been fully executed this prayer cannot be granted. Tn view ofthe above,, tlie instant petition is disposed ofwith a __ direction to the Executing Court to decide whether the decree has jbesn fully satisfied or not by depositing the entire decretalamount /'' .-..-: • :.. " ' .-"'^- ; "- i ^••-,.. '^. 1 :;--1. ^ ^-^..^. )H:1 byjudgment debtor, the respondent no.6/auction purchaser shaii be at iibe^ to movs before the Executing Coyrt to withdraw the amount deposited by him/her while purchasing the subject propert}7 m'aBction. in course ofexecution. On such application being made the Executmg Court shall decide the same in accordanee with law. Shri ShaiTna siibmits that m view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AJ.R. 1954 S.C. 349 (Mani!al Mohanlal Shah and others Vs. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad and another, (para 8 & 12) and AJ.R 1998, Madhya Pradesh 24S (Prakash Chand Rai and others Vs. Siate Bank oflndwe^ Bhopal cind another) the order passed by the Executing Court extending time for depositing the auction mooe}^ cannot be granted. Be that as it may, since this Court is disposi&g of the Writ Petition in the tenns indicated above, there is no need ofdealing with the msrits ofmatter at presetit, however, ifthe execution proceedings for confirmation of the sale is contin.ued; the petitioner shai! be at libe?^ to approach this Court again. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge c-i-