C.R.No.6560 of 2008 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.8518-CII of 2009 and C.R.No.6560 of 2008 Date of Order: 16.4.2009 Sahib Ram and others .....Petitioners Versus Satish Kumar ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the respondent. JASWANT SINGH,J C.M.No.8518-CII of 2009 Application is allowed. Counter affidavit of respondent Satish Kumar along with Annexures R.1 to R.3 are taken on record and exemption is granted from filing certified copies of the same. C.R.No.6560 of 2008 Petitioner No.1 Sahib Ram/Judgment Debtor No.1 along with his two sons namely Sanjay Kumar/petitioner No.2-Judgment Debtor No.2 and Jaswant Singh/petitioner No.3-Judgment Debtor No.3 has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside order dated 23.8.2008 (Annexure P.3) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Fazilka whereby the objections filed C.R.No.6560 of 2008 #2# by petitioner No.1 Sahib Ram against the attachment of his property have been dismissed and warrants of sale were ordered to be issued. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff, on 31.12.1999, instituted a suit for recovery for a sum of Rs.3,29,235/-. The said suit was decreed on 28.1.2005 against the petitioners-defendants for a sum of Rs.3,29,235/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 31.12.1999 till the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum along with the costs. The appeal preferred by the petitioners- defendants against the afore-stated decree was dismissed on 7.11.2005 by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur. Even the Regular Second Appeal bearing RSA No.787 of 2006 preferred by the petitioners- defendants was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.1.2007. Thereafter, the respondent-decree holder was compelled to file execution application for a total sum of Rs.5,57,080/- i.e the amount due on the date of filing the execution by way of attachment of property of the judgment debtors. Petitioner No.1-Sahib Ram/Judgment Debtor No.1 filed his objections dated 2.6.2008 (Annexure P.2) Under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC on behalf of the JDs. Learned Executing Court vide order dated 23.8.2008 dismissed the same and ordered that on filing of warrants fee, warrants of sale be issued. Admittedly, as per the schedule fixed by the learned Executing Court, the attached land of petitioner No.1-Sahib Ram was sold by auction on 15.11.2008, which fetched an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. It is, thereafter that the petitioners filed the present revision petition praying for quashing the impugned order and stay of confirmation of the sale in view of their C.R.No.6560 of 2008 #3# willingness and readiness to pay the entire outstanding amount. Accordingly on 6.3.2009, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from petitioner No.2-Sanjay Kumar, states that the petitioners are willing and ready to tender the principal amount within one month and the interest part in instalments. He further contends that the auction has been conducted for 15 kanals of the land belonging to the petitioners in stead of attached 12 kanals, which has fetched a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- only. He further submits that as per their information, the land has been bought in auction by the brother of the decree holder, at such a low price. Notice of motion to the respondents for 16.4.2009 subject to petitioners' bringing a draft of the principal amount of Rs.3,29,235/- in the name of the respondent Satish Kumar. Dasti as well. Till then, the sale by auction of the aforesaid land shall not be confirmed. It is clarified that if on the next date, the aforesaid principal amount is not brought for disbursement to the respondent, this petition shall stand automatically dismissed. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment.” Respondent-plaintiff Satish Kumar has filed a counter affidavit by way of filing civil miscellaneous application, which has been taken on record vide a separate order. Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought a draft of the principal amount of Rs.3,29,235/- for disbursement in the name of the respondent Satish Kumar as directed vide order dated 6.3.2009. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff by referring to the contents of counter affidavit of Satish Kumar submitted that the petitioners-defendants have misrepresented and mis-stated the facts at number of places, which do not entitle them to maintain the present revision petition. By referring to Annexure R.1 with the affidavit, it is C.R.No.6560 of 2008 #4# shown that a wrong statement was made before this Court on 6.3.2009 to say that the sale had been conducted for 15 kanals whereas the land attached was only 12 kanals. It is further submitted that the present revision petition has become infructuous as the property in question has already been sold in an open auction and thereafter the only remedy available with the judgment debtor is under the provisions of Order 21 Rules 89 and 90 CPC and the petitioners-defendants before 6.3.2009 have already availed the remedy under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC vide their application dated 28.2.2009 on the grounds, which are substantially the same as canvassed before this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, I find that the present revision petition is devoid of any merit and, therefore is liable to be dismissed. It is apparent from the perusal of Annexure R.1 with the counter affidavit that in fact it was 48 kanals and 12 marlas of land owned by the petitioner-JD No.1, which was attached in stead of alleged attachment of 12 kanals of land only. It is further manifest that out of total attached land measuring 48 kanals and 12 marlas, only 15 kanals 04 marlas was put to auction and the same was sold for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. It is also not disputed that the petitioners have availed the remedy available under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC on substantially the same grounds as asserted in the revision petition. It can also not be disputed that on 6.3.2009 before this Court, the fact of filing the application dated 2.6.2008 (Annexure P.2) was not brought to the notice of the Court by petitioner No.2, who was present in Court. Therefore, the petitioners by their conduct have disentitled themselves from claiming any relief from this Court. I further restrain myself from commenting upon other aspects of the case lest it prejudices the C.R.No.6560 of 2008 #5# decision in the pending application or any other application to be filed before the learned Executing Court. In view of the above, I find no ground to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. April 16, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE