Civil Revision No. 2438 of 2010 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2438 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.5.2010 Harjinder Singh ..... Petitioner vs Bank of India and others ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. B. D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 24.5.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, whereby objections filed the petitioner were dismissed and order dated 17.3.2010, whereby his appeal against that order was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amrisar. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Bank of India- respondent no. 1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 32,258/- with interest @ 14% against Mansa Singh, Ranjit Singh and Sanjiv Mehra. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 29.1.1995 and thereafter execution was filed and the property in question was attached and later on put to sale vide order dated 19.1.2001. The said property was purchased by one Sandeep Bhaskar on 15.10.2001. As no objection to the auction was filed, the sale was confirmed vide order dated 10.12.2001 and sale certificate was issued in favour of the purchaser which was also registered with the Sub-Registrar, Amritsar. Thereafter, the auction purchaser filed application on 3.2.2002 for getting the possession of the said property. As he was restrained from taking possession, he applied for police help. According to the petitioner, on 19.7.2006 he came to know that his house has been attached in the execution proceedings. He filed objection petition which was dismissed by the learned court below vide order dated 24.5.2008 and appeal against the dismissal of his objection was also dismissed on 17.3.2010. It is against these orders of the courts below that he has filed the present revision. Civil Revision No. 2438 of 2010 (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ex-parte judgment and decree dated 29.1.1995 was obtained by the respondent bank by fraud and misrepresentation of the facts and the same is not binding on the petitioner. It was further submitted that vide agreement to sell dated 29.12.1988 and 1.9.1989 executed by Davinder Singh and Amarjit Singh in his favour, the possession was delivered to him by them and thereafter he has constructed the house in question. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper- book. A perusal of the order of the trial court shows that notice of the execution was issued to the judgment debtors but they did not come and were proceeded against ex-parte. Thereafter, publication was made. The sale was conducted in the open auction. The property in question was purchased by one Sandeep Bhaskar on 15.10.2001. The sale certificate was issued, as no objection to the auction was filed which was also registered with the Sub-Registrar, Amritsar. The petitioner could not produce any document with regard to his claim or possession over the property in question. He has based his claim only on the basis of agreement to sell dated 29.12.1988 executed in his favour by Davinder Singh and Amarjit Singh. The contention of the learned counsel that the bank had obtained a decree for recovery against Ranjit Singh by fraud, misrepresentation has no force as he has not put in appearance or approached the court against the said decree. In the absence of any documentary proof of ownership, the objections filed by the petitioner have rightly been dismissed by the court below. The agreement to sell on the basis of which he claims his ownership does not confer any title. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is dismissed. 3.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge