ESA No. 5 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- ESA No. 5 of 2009 Date of decision: August 31, 2009 Punjab Financial Corporation ........ Appellant Versus Ved Parkash and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Pradip Bhandari, Advocate for the appellant Mr. V K Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prashant Vashisht, Advocate for caveator/respondents -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is an appeal against the order dated 10.06.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sangrur, confirming the sale in favour of the auction purchaser-Ved Parkash (respondent herein) as well as the judgement dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation against the aforesaid order of the trial Court. While challenging the aforesaid impugned order/judgement passed by both the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation ESA No. 5 of 2009 2 submitted that the appellant-corporation was not informed regarding the auction of the property, in dispute. It is further argued that the appellant was not impleaded as judgement debtor in the execution, whereas in the array of respondents, the name of the appellant has been clearly shown as one of the defendants in the suit, and as such, the appellant had no knowledge about the execution and attachment and any other proceedings of the execution filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board in the Court. The appellant was necessary party as judgement debtor in execution and auction sale orders were obtained/passed at the back of the appellant. Therefore, the execution is bad and collusive and the appellant was a necessary party to protect its interest in the mortgaged property. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The facts as noted are that a civil suit No. 107/30.03.1998 was filed by the Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board and others against M/s Sez Metals Private Limited and others, including the appellant-corporation, as defendant No. 5. In the suit, the appellant-corporation has filed its reply, denying that it has jointly and severally liable to pay the dues of the Punjab State Electricity Board. A specific plea was taken that the dues of the Corporation is about Rs.86,00,209 and were to be recovered from the loanee concerned at that time with further interest. The loanee/defendant has mortgaged the property, in dispute to the Corporation. It was further stated that the appellant has got first charge over the assets of defendant/loanee company and the same has already been taken over by the Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation, 1951. The Court duly held that defendant No. 5, i.e. the appellant- corporation secured creditor will be entitled to recover its loan amount on priority basis from the property of defendant No. 1. It is not disputed that no appeal was preferred against the judgement ESA No. 5 of 2009 3 and decree. As such, the decree is binding upon judgement debtor No. 1 to 7. The only question herein, is whether the auctioned property can fetch more amount than for which it was auctioned. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the amount so received in auction was not according to the valuation or that the price was inadequate. Mere averment that it was auctioned at low price is in itself not sufficient without any substantial evidence or proof. As regards the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation that no notice was issued to them is concerned, it seems that the same was found to be incorrect by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to deny that Harjit Singh, Deputy Manager (Legal) of the appellant-Corporation was duly present at the time of auction proceedings. In fact, it was on account of his objection that the place of auction was shifted and, accordingly, it was held at B-12 Focal Point, Sangrur. No other objection was raised by the representative of the Corporation. Moreover, no grievance has been caused to the appellant corporation, in view of the finding that the Corporation can claim the amount as per its preferential right. No other argument was raised. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 31, 2009 mohan