COCP No. 1337 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … COCP No. 1337 of 2009 Date of decision: July 28, 2009 Manish Kumar son of Dhanpat Rai ..Petitioner. Versus Surjan Singh and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J(Oral) C.M.No.17287-CII of 2009 C.M. is allowed as prayed. COCP No. 1337 of 2009 As per the averments made in this petition, a decree was passed on 26.8.1986 against the respondents and in favour of Punjab National Bank Rewari for recovery. In execution of the aforesaid decree, property of the judgment debtor/respondents was sold. The petitioner is the auction-purchaser of the said property. The respondent moved an application before the executing court for setting aside the sale in favour of petitioner, which was dismissed. The present revision petition had been filed by the respondents challenging the aforesaid order of the executing court dated 19.9.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 24.1.2006 passed by this court in C.R.No.6586 of 2005, dispossession of Surjan Singh and others was stayed. The aforesaid Civil Revision was admitted for regular hearing by this court vide order dated 18.12.2006. Vide aforesaid order, the interim order dated 24.1.2006 was ordered to continue. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent/judgment debtor has sold the property in dispute vide registered sale COCP No. 1337 of 2009 2 deeds dated 7.3.2009 and 5.5.2008 and thus have committed the contempt of the orders passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 6586 of 2005. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is an auction purchaser and his rights to the property in dispute are sub judice in Civil Revision No.6586 of 2005 as sale in his favour has been challenged by the respondents. No order has been passed in the aforesaid Civil Revision restraining the respondents from alienating the property in dispute. While admitting the case on 18.12.2006, this Court had directed the decree holder i.e., Punjab National Bank to return the amount deposited by the auction-purchaser. The petitioner has maintained silence over the return of amount by the decree holder to him. Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual position,I am of the view that no contempt of any of the orders passed by this Court in C.R. No. 6586 of 2005 has been committed by the respondents. Rule discharged. The contempt petition is dismissed. July 28, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE