IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7778 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 23, 2010 Mange …Petitioner Versus Lalita Singh and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Alok Singh, J. Present petition is filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by learned C.R. No. 7778 of 2009 Executing Court/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani, as well as, order dated 03.08.2009 passed by the learned Appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Bhiwan, whereby rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner herein against the execution of decree. The brief facts of the present case, inter-alia, are that the plaintiff – respondent No.1 herein has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.86,000/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. In the suit, plaintiff – respondent no.1 herein also filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C., seeking attachment before judgment of the property mentioned in the application. In the suit, learned Trial Court vide order dated 12.04.1999 directed the defendant – judgment debtor – respondent No.2 herein either to furnish surety bond to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- or in default thereof, to attach his land before the judgment. Defendant-judgment debtor herein has submitted surety bond before the learned Trial Court on 24.05.1999 saying in the event of any decree being passed, he would make payment of the decreetal amount and on his failure, the decreetal amount can be recovered by auction sale of the property in question. The suit of the plaintiff, decree holder was decreed on 12.02.2000. In the execution being carried out by the decree holder, petitioner herein filed an objection that property in dispute neither can be attached nor can be sold in view of the 2 C.R. No. 7778 of 2009 fact that petitioner objector has purchased the property in question vide sale deed dated 08.12.1999. It has further been contended by the plaintiff – petitioner that he was not aware of the pendency of the suit or any attachment order or security submitted by the defendant therein, hence, objector petitioner is the bona fide purchaser with consideration, hence, property purchased by him cannot be sold in execution of the decree passed in favour of the decree holder against the judgment debtor. Both the Courts below have dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner herein. Undisputedly, in the suit, an application under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. was moved. Undisputedly, in the suit for recovery of amount filed by the decree holder against the judgment debtor, learned Trial Court vide order dated 12.04.1999 directed the defendant – judgment debtor either to furnish surety bond to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- or in default to attach his land in question before judgment. Undisputedly, before the learned Trial Court, a surety bond was submitted by the defendant – judgment debtor on 24.05.1999 specifically stating therein that in the event of any decree being passed, defendant shall pay entire decreetal amount and on his failure to pay the decreetal amount, same can be recovered from the property in dispute by auction sale of the property in the execution. In view of undisputed facts, in the opinion of this Court decreetal amount can be recovered by auction sale of 3 C.R. No. 7778 of 2009 the property in question. In the opinion of this Court, if judgment debtor/defendant has sold the property, by concealing the fact that he has created charge on the property by way of security bond, petitioner – purchaser can take appropriate legal action for recovery of sale consideration with damages against the defendant – judgment debtor, however, petitioner can not resist the execution by nullifying the charge and security bond duly submitted and accepted by the Trial Court. In view of the above, this Court does not intend to interfere with the view taken by both the Courts below. Dismissed. September 23, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 4