CR No.461 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.461 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 25.1.2010 Daljit Singh Sandhu ......Petitioner(s) Versus Kamaljit Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. H.S. Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.1694-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.461 of 2010 (O&M) Challenge in this revision petition is to the impugned orders dated 31.5.2007 (Annexure P-4) and dated 24.10.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Amritsar and the Additional District Judge, Amristar whereby objections filed by the petitioner against the issuance of Sale Certificate in favour of one Kamaljit Singh son of Harbhajan Singh on 20.11.2003 with regard to the property in dispute has been dismissed. Briefly stated, as per the averments, one Balwinder Singh son of Nihal Singh was proprietor of M/s Sandeep Textile Mills, Dilawari Street, G.T. Road, Putlighar, Amritsar. A civil suit filed by the respondent-State Bank of India for recovery was decreed against him on 13.3.1990. The petitioner who was a tenant of the aforesaid Balwinder Singh in part of a property bearing No.1509/22 situated at Khasra No.93, Khata Khataoni CR No.461 of 2010(O&M) 2 No.2/59 at G.T. Road, Putligar, Kot Mahant Ram Saran Dass, Amritsar and was not aware of any such decree having been passed against Balwinder Singh who misrepresented and concealed the fact and offered to sell the property in question which was in possession of the petitioner as tenant. The petitioner after verifying the revenue record entered into a sale deed dated 8.7.1999 with said Balwinder Singh (now represented through respondent No.5) and bought the property vide sale deed dated 8.7.1999. Thereafter the petitioner became owner of the property in question and the other tenants using the property started paying rent to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that Balwinder Singh in connivance with the bank officials and in order to play a fraud with him got auctioned the property through respondent No.3 without any publication of the auction conducted on 8.11.2002. Sale certificate dated 20.11.2003 was issued in favour of respondents No.1 and 2, who were the near relatives of aforesaid Balwinder Singh. Thus, the auction of the property in dispute for a meager sum of Rs.2 lacs was made in a clandestine manner which clearly shows that there was a conspiracy on the part of Balwinder Singh and his family to dispossess him and to cheat the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner came to know about the auction only when the Bailiff from the Court came with the warrants of possession. Thus, the petitioner filed objections in the execution application filed by the respondent-Bank on 17.1.2004 disclosing his entire case and the fraud committed upon him. He also lodged an FIR No.17 dated 24.1.2004 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471 and 120-B IPC. The objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar vide order dated 31.5.2007. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 24.10.2009. CR No.461 of 2010(O&M) 3 Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the petitioner was the bona fide purchaser of the property in question vide registered sale deed dated 8.7.1999. It was further argued by him that a fraud was committed upon the petitioner which was apparent on the face of it. Elaborating further his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there was not an open auction and the petitioner being a tenant of the property in question was present at the spot on all working days from morning to evening. Neither any notice of the auction was ever sent to the petitioner who was a tenant in the property in question. The Courts below have failed to consider this aspect of the case and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The material issues in this case are “whether the sale certificate dated 8.11.2002 is liable to be set aside” and “whether there was any material irregularity and fraud in conducting the sale”. The stand taken by the petitioner is that sale deed dated 8.7.1999 executed by Balwinder Singh in his favour is genuine and the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser. It may also be noticed that Balwinder Singh, the owner of the suit property, obtained loan from the Bank in the year 1985 and title was handed over with the Bank before advancement of the loan. He defaulted in payment and thus, the Bank filed civil suit which was decreed on 13.3.1990. Execution was filed in which notice was served upon Balwinder Singh and his property was attached. Notice under Section 21 Rule 66 CPC was issued and thereafter complying the legal formalities the suit property was put to auction. The highest bid was given by Kamaljit Singh and Manpreet Kaur. The requisite money was deposited. Objections were called by the Executing Court and after expiry of stipulated period, the sale was CR No.461 of 2010(O&M) 4 confirmed, and sale certificate dated 20.11.2003 was issued in favour of respondents No.1 and 2. Thus, the proper procedure was applied. The petitioner has not pointed out any irregularities from the evidence on record. It is proved that auction which took place on 8.11.2002 was in accordance with law. There is no evidence to establish that the sale certificate was issued by way of misrepresentation in any manner. Conclusion of the Courts below cannot be found faulted with. No merit. Dismissed. January 25, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE