Civil Revision No.552 of 2006 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.552 of 2006 Date of decision: July 2, 2009. M/s Varinder Mohan & Co., Kapurthala ...Petitioner(s) v. M/s Manohar Lal Hira Lal (P) Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Narinder Lucky, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.11.2005 of the learned District Judge, Kapurthala whereby the order dated 9.5.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala accepting the petitioner's objections under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC, has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the executing court for afresh decision, in accordance with law with particular reference to the issues framed by the learned District Judge. A brief reference to the relevant facts may be made. M/s Manohar Lal - respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery Civil Revision No.552 of 2006 -: 2 :- of Rs.38, 392.45 against Jagatjit Fastners (P) Ltd., Kapurthala. The said civil suit (No.362 of 1981) was decreed by the civil court on 20.4.1983. In execution thereof, the decree-holder purchased the subject property of the judgment debtor in a public auction held on 4.3.1993. The sale was confirmed by the executing court on 10.9.1993 and finally issued the sale certificate in favour of the decree holder/auction purchaser on 19.1.1996. Meanwhile, it appears that the workers/employees of the judgment debtor-company approached this Court against non-payment of their wages. The government dues of ESI, provident fund, wages, etc. pursuant to the Labour Court directions were also recoverable from M/s Jagatjit Fasteners (P) Ltd. The Collector, Kapurthala, therefore, vide his order dated 5.12.1994, attached the same property and put to public auction on 14.2.1994 in which the present petitioner is stated to have been the highest bidder. The auction in favour of the petitioner was 'confirmed' by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and approved by the Financial Commissioner as well. The bone of contention is, as to whether the subject property is owned by respondent No.1 who is the decree holder against M/s Jagatjit Fasteners (P) Ltd. as also the auction purchaser in the auction conducted by the civil court or by the petitioner in whose favour the said property has been subsequently auctioned by the Collector, Kapurthala in order to recover the governmental and workers dues? Respondent No.1 – decree holder moved an application before the civil court-cum-executing court to deliver possession of the subject property to it. The petitioner – the subsequent auction purchaser, filed objections under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC which were accepted by the civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala-cum-executing court vide his order Civil Revision No.552 of 2006 -: 3 :- dated 9.5.1995. The said order has been set aside by the learned District Judge vide his impugned judgment dated 28.11.2005 and who, while remanding the case to the executing court, has framed the following five issues to be decided on merits:- (i)Whether the second objection petition was maintainable in view of the dismissal of the first objection petition filed by the objector-petitioner on 29.5.2001. If so, its effect? OPP-Objector (ii) Whether sale of property in dispute made in favour of the decree holder M/s Manohar Lal, Hira Lal Pvt. Ltd. on 4.3.1993, confirmed on 10.9.1994 and the sale certificate was issued on 19.1.1996, is legal and valid? OP- DH/Respondent. (iii) Whether the decree-holder on the basis of the said sale became owner of the property in question? OP-DH (iv) whether the sale in open auction made in favour of M/s Varinder Mohan and Co., Kapurthala respondent No.1 on 14.2.1994 was a nullity on the grounds mentioned in reply to the objection petition. If so, its effect? OP-DH (v) whether objector-respondent No.1 was entitled to possession of the property in question? OP-Objector.” Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that no interference with the impugned order is called for by this Court. The above noticed facts would speak for themselves that prima-facie, respondent No.1 – decree holder has obtained a money decree Civil Revision No.552 of 2006 -: 4 :- against M/s Jagatjit Fasteners (P) Ltd. and in execution thereof that he purchased the subject property, acquiring the dual status of decree holder and the auction purchaser. The suit was decreed as well as the auction in which the decree holder was the highest bidder, also took place much before the auction conducted by the Collector, Kapurthala in which the present petitioner was statedly the highest bidder. In these circumstances, the plea taken by respondent No.1 of being a bona-fide auction purchaser/the decree- holder cannot be lightly brushed aside and deserves to be decided on merits after giving opportunity to the parties to lead their respective evidence. In this backdrop, the fact that respondent No.1 has meanwhile filed another declaratory suit for setting aside the auction conducted by the district administration in favour of the petitioner and/or refusal of ad-interim injunction in that suit, has absolutely no bearing on the issues framed by the learned District Judge which do arise for consideration of the Executing Court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned executing court on 11.8.2009. July 02, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge