CMPMO 28 of 2008 11.4.2008 Present: Mr. Imran Khan, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General, For respondent No. 2. This case has a rather chequered history. One company known as M/s Mankoo Ply Board (P) Ltd. had obtained loan from the Central Bank of India. Since the loan was not repaid, the bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,11,575/- alongwith interest and costs etc. In the said suit it was alleged that Surinder Singh Mankoo, one of the Directors of the firm, had mortgaged his property in favour of the Central Bank. The suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed for recovery of the decretal amount by realization of the amount by way of sale of the mortgaged property. This decree was passed on 9th July, 1996. Thereafter in execution proceedings the property of Surinder Singh Mankoo, aforesaid, which was mortgage, was sold under the orders of the court and the same was purchased by the present petitioner on 21st March, 2002. Sale certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner by the Registry of this Court. The petitioner, however, on verifying the revenue record, found that there was an order of attachment in respect of the property issued by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Solan. He filed an application before respondent No. 2 that the said entry may be deleted in view of the fact that he had purchased the property in an auction conducted under the orders of this court. Respondent No. 2 rejected this application and, in my opinion rightly so, because according to him the attachment had been ordered by the MACT and he had no right to order the cancellation of the same. The petitioner also filed an application before the MACT, Solan which is attached as Annexure A-11. This application was filed on 11th August, 2006, but I am informed by Mr. Khan that the same is still pending. From the material on record it is established that the land in dispute was already mortgaged with the Central Bank of India. This mortgage had taken place much prior to the attachment orders issued by the MACT on 21.2.1991. The mortgage had been entered in favour of the petitioner as far back as on 5.11.1988. The subsequent attachment could not wipe out the earlier mortgage. This court in CWP No. 306 of 2007, M/s A.J. Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of H.P. and others has held that even the State shall have no prior right to recover the crown debts in respect of the property which is mortgaged with a bank. Therefore, it is clear that the entry in question has to be deleted and the petitioner given clear title to the property which he has purchased in an auction conducted under the orders of this court. I am constrained to note that a simple application filed in this behalf has been pending before the MACT for more than one year and three months. Disposal of such an application should have been done in one or two months at the most. It would also not be out of place to mention that award in which the attachment was ordered to be issued was passed on 31.12.1986. The execution petition was filed and the same was disposed of on 25.11.1992. Limitation for executing an award is 12 years. This period has also elapsed a along time back. There is no idea of continuing with the attachment order passed by the learned MACT. The learned MACT is, therefore, directed to issue requisite orders withdrawing the earlier attachment. The learned MACT, Solan shall send a copy of the order to respondent No. 2. This be done within one month of the production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 shall comply with the directions of the learned MACT, Solan within a further period of one month. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. April 11, 2008(K) ( Deepak Gupta ), J.