IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5164 of 2009 [O&M]. Date of Decision: 27th May, 2009. Beant Singh Petitioner through Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate Versus State Bank of Patiala & Ors. Respondents through Mr. G.S.Anand, Advocate. Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate Respondent No. 3 ex-parte. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the Sale Certificate dated 23.3.2009 [Annexure P-6] issued by the Authorized Officer of the State Bank of Patiala in favour of respondent No. 3 in respect of residential property situated in Street No. 1, Arjan Nagar, Bathinda, comprising Khasra No.5183/4937, Khewat/Khatoni No.1380/5878 measuring 180 square yards [for short 'the subject property'], which respondent No. 3 is stated to have purchased in a public auction. [2]. The subject property was owned by respondent No. 2 – Vijay Singh, who while taking a loan of Rs.3 lacs mortgaged the same in favour of respondent Bank. Respondent No. 2 thereafter sold the subject property to the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 6.2.2006 [Annexure P-1]. Respondent No. 2 having failed to repay the loan, the respondent Bank auctioned the subject property in which respondent No.3, being the highest bidder, offered Rs.5.76 lacs and on deposit thereof, the impugned Sale Certificate has been issued in his favour. [3]. The petitioner's case is that he is a bona-fide purchaser who bought the property after verifying the revenue records and on being satisfied that the subject property was free from all encumbrances. Alternatively, the petitioner has come up with the stand that he is ready and willing to discharge the loan liability of respondent No. 2 in order to save his solitary residential house. The petitioner vehemently argued that the subject – property has been auctioned for a song. [4]. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, respondents No.1 and 2 have put in appearance. Respondent No.3 did not appear despite service and has been proceeded against ex- parte. [5]. It may also be mentioned that while issuing notice of motion, it was directed that subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. One Lac with the respondent Bank, the sale shall not be confirmed. The petitioner has complied with the said order though the the Demand Draft deposited by him has not been encashed by the respondent Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought today another Demand Draft in the sum of Rs. One Lac in favour of the respondent Bank. [6]. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and keeping in view the stand taken by the petitioner that he is ready and willing to pay the entire loan amount to the respondent Bank along with interest as on the date when auction purchaser had deposited the amount, i.e., 5.12.2008, and the fact that respondent No. 3 has not come forward and, thus, the petitioner's plea that the subject property has been sold at his back at a lower rate has gone un-rebutted, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The question as to whether the petitioner is a bona-fide purchaser neednot be gone into. The impugned Sale Certificate dated 23.3.2009 [Annexure P-6] is accordingly set aside, subject, however, to the following conditions:- “[i] the petitioner is directed to deposit the entire loan amount recoverable from respondent No. 2 along with interest up to 5.12.2008 within one month from the date the respondent Bank informs him the outstanding dues; [ii] the respondent Bank shall thereafter hand-over the original title deeds of the subject property along with No Dues Certificate; [iii] subject to the compliance of direction [i], the sale certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 3 shall stand cancelled. The petitioner shall be entitled to take possession of the subject property through the respondent Bank; [iv] respondent No. 3 – the auction purchaser shall be refunded the sale consideration deposited by him along with interest @9%. The arrears of interest payable to respondent No. 3 shall also be paid by the petitioner. [7]. If the petitioner fails to deposit the arrears, as directed above, in that event Sale Certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 3 shall stand revived and confirmed. [8]. Disposed of. Dasti. May 27, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE