Civil Revision No. 2168 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2168 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.08.2010 Gurmeet Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State Bank of India, Sunam, and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.5.2006, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam, i.e. learned Executing Court, as affirmed by the learned appellate Court, vide which the objections filed by the petitioner against the auction of the property, stand dismissed. The decree-holder-State Bank of India, Sunam, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,72,330/- (Rupees four lac seventy two thousand three hundred and thirty only) against M/s Bansal Poultry Farm, Sunam, through its owner by sale of hypothecated/mortgaged property. The suit was decreed for recovery of Rs.4,72,330/- (Rupees four lac seventy two thousand three hundred and thirty only). The decree-holder-Bank filed execution application and got the mortgaged property attached for sale. The petitioner, by claiming herself to be third party, filed objections against the sale of the property on the plea, that the petitioner Civil Revision No. 2168 of 2008 (O&M) -2- had purchased the property after due verification of revenue record on 18.2.2000. The case of the petitioner is, that the vendors of the petitioner Sh. Karamjit Singh and Smt. Santosh Rani did not disclose to the petitioner that the property being purchased by her was under mortgage with the State Bank of India. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had purchased the property on 18.2.2000 i.e. prior to institution of the suit i.e. 13.3.2001. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order is two fold: Firstly that the petitioner being bona fide purchaser for consideration after due enquiry, therefore, was not bound by the decree of the civil court, as the property at the time of purchase was not attached, nor it was purchased during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner being owner, her property could not be sold in execution of a decree passed against the vendors. Secondly, the impugned order has been challenged on the ground, that though the objections filed by the petitioner were third party objections, the learned Executing Court summarily rejected the objections without framing issues, and letting the parties to lead evidence. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's claim of bona fide purchaser for consideration cannot be disputed. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of the fact, that it is well settled law that the mortgage goes with the property. The mortgagor/owner is authorized to sell the property, but the vendee of that property buys it with the Civil Revision No. 2168 of 2008 (O&M) -3- mortgage. The vendee cannot dispute the mortgage, for want of notice. Thus, the claim of the petitioner, that the property cannot be sold to recover the mortgage amount, cannot be accepted. The petitioner shall be entitled to receive the balance amount, if any left after adjusting the decree. The petitioner is to step into the shoes of the owner and is to be held to be a mortgagor since 18.2.2000. The petitioner cannot challenge the auction of the mortgaged property. The remedy with the petitioner is to recover the loss from the vendors. The second question also deserves to be rejected. Though the learned Executing Court is bound to adjudicate the third party objections as a civil court, but frivolous objections can always be rejected. Once, the plea raised by the petitioner is found to be against settled law, that mortgage goes with the property, the judgment passed by the learned Courts below cannot be faulted with, just for want of framing of issues or not letting the parties to lead evidence. It is also well settled law that the frivolous objection of the third party can be summarily rejected by the learned Executing Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 03, 2010 R.S.