IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Revision No.4213 of 2011 (O&M) Ripudaman … Petitioner Versus Subhash Chand and another … Respondents 2. Civil Revision No.4217 of 2011 (O&M) Ripudaman … Petitioner Versus Devender Singh and another … Respondents Date of decision: 1st August, 2011 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for respondent No.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) By this common order, two petitions viz. (1) Civil Revision No.4213 of 2011 titled as ‘Ripudaman v. Subhash Chand and another’ and (2) Civil Revision No.4217 of 2011 titled as ‘Ripudaman v. Devender Singh and another’ shall be decided together. Both the present revision petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 15th June, 2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohindergarh whereby the objections filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor have been stated to be summarily Civil Revisions No.4213 and 4217 of 2011 (O&M) dismissed along with the impugned order (Annexure P-3) dated 9th June, 2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. This Court on July 14, 2011 passed the following order: “Issue notice of motion for 1st August, 2011. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner-judgment debtor had filed objections (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel states at bar that these objections were not decided. Learned counsel further states that without deciding the objections, the Executing Court has issued a certificate of Court regarding sale of the property. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that being aware of the pendency of the execution petition, the petitioner-judgment debtor had not caused appearance and had delayed the disposal of the execution petition. The Executing Court noticed that despite availing of various opportunities the judgment debtor has been evading to satisfy the decree. Counsel for the petitioner states that to show his bonafide the petitioner will deposit 50 percent of the amount of decree along with interest which has accrued till 23rd July, 2011. In view of the fair offer made by counsel for the petitioner and keeping into account the balance of equities and fair play, it is ordered that in case the petitioner deposits 50 percent of the amount of decree on 23rd July, 2011 along with interest which has accrued till that date, the impugned order be kept in abeyance and the objections (Annexure P-1) be decided by the trial Court in accordance with the provisions of law. However, amount so deposited be not disbursed till present petition is disposed of.” Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, states that the petitioner-judgment debtor had himself 2 Civil Revisions No.4213 and 4217 of 2011 (O&M) made a statement that he is ready to pay the amount to auction purchaser along with the expenses of execution proceedings and RBI interest within one-and-a-half month. Learned counsel further states that in view of this, it should be presumed that the petitioner had waived off his objections. After hearing counsel for the parties, both the present revision petitions are disposed of by directing the Executing Court to decide the objections (Annexure P-1) within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be retained by the trial Court till the objections are decided and thereafter, the same shall be disbursed to the concerned parties in accordance with the provisions of law. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 1, 2011 rps 3