Civil Revision No. 460 of 2009 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 460 of 2009 (O & M) Date of decision 28.1.2009 Gurnam Singh .....Appellant versus Krishan Lal .....Respondent Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr.M. S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. K. Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The civil revision petition contains a challenge to the order passed by the Executing Court on an application filed for setting aside the sale that has been held in purported execution of the decree. The Court auction and sale were pursuant to an order of remand by the Appellate Court setting aside sale in respect of the same property made earlier by the order of the appellate Court dated 31.05.2006. The objection of the judgment falls on two grounds (i) that there had been no valid notice under Order 21 Rule 66 and (ii) the property that was sold did not exclusively belong to the judgment debtor. 2. The Executing Court adverting to the issue of notice pointed out that when the earlier sale was set aside, the Appellate Court had remanded the matter with the direction to held fresh auction sale in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. The Appellate Court had also directed that the bid already Civil Revision No. 460 of 2009 (O & M) -2- tendered by the auction purchaser be treated as one of the bids at the auction sale and the 25% deposit made might be treated as deposit under Order 21 Rule 84(1) CPC. The Executing Court, in its impugned order, made a perusal of the file and observed that notices of the Order 21 Rule 66 had been issued to the judgement debtor but it was returned as refused and service of the notice was affected through affixation and even then the judgement debtor did not appear to give any objection. The said notice has been treated as sufficient. 3. The Executing Court has also made an observation that notice under Order 21 Rule 66 was not again necessary after the remand. Such an observation may not be correct but having regard to the fact that the Court had earlier found in the same order that substituted notices had been issued and having further regard to the fact that the judgement debtor at all times had been prosecuting the case in relation to the Court auction sale, it was only to be inferred that he knew about the Court proceedings but still did not makes any objection at appropriate time. It may be seen that the suit is of the year 1997 and the proceedings relating to sale have been made only recently, after nearly a decade. 4. The objection regarding want of title of the property itself is without substance, since there is never any warranty of title in Court auction. What is sold in Court auction is the right title and interest of the judgment debtor and any person that may have independent right to the property will have an appropriate redress through a properly instituted petition in execution or by an independent suit. It does not lie in the mouth of the judgment debtor to contend that the property that was attached and brought to sale did not really belong to him. Civil Revision No. 460 of 2009 (O & M) -3- 5. There are no reasons that would justify interference against the order passed by the Executing court and hence the revision petition is dismissed. ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE 28.01.2009 A. KAUNDAL