IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5611 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 13.05.2008 Umesh Kumar ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate vs. Central Bank of India and others ....Respondent(s) through None. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.7.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division)-cum-Executing Court whereby objections preferred by the judgment debtor against the auction held on 4.4.2001 whereby his solitary residential house was put to auction, have been accepted and the auction has been set aside. The petitioner is the auction purchaser. A suit for recovery was filed by the Central Bank of India against respondents No.1 and 2 which was decreed on 9.12.1991 for recovery of Rs.59,499.45 paisa with costs and future interest at the rate of 14.5 per cent with quarterly rests. In execution of the above-stated money decree, two residential plots owned by the judgment-debtors bearing house Nos.20-21, opposite Milk Plant, Ballabhgarh, consisting 210 sq. yards were put to auction on C.R. No.5611 of 2006 -2- 4.4.2001. The petitioner claims to have been the highest bidder who offered Rs.1,25,000/- and deposited Rs.32,000/- at the spot. The respondent-judgment debtors, however, filed objections against the above-stated auction which have been accepted by the Executing Court vide the impugned order. Before adverting to the merits of the impugned order, it may also be noticed here that meanwhile the judgment debtors have paid the decretal amount to the Bank and the decree having been fully satisfied, the execution application has already been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 7.8.2006. The only question which requires consideration is as to whether or not the auction held on 4.4.2001 was conducted in accordance with the Rules. The learned Executing Court has noticed more than one material irregularity including (i) one of the plots was owned by Smt.Vidya Devi- respondent No.3 and the same was not mortgaged with the bank; (ii) though the plots were two, however, only one residential house was constructed thereupon which could not be put to auction; (iii) no auction was conducted at the spot; and (iv) the auction was in fact a mere eye-wash being an outcome of collusion between the petitioner and the auctioneer. Before arriving at the above-noticed conclusion, the learned Executing court framed the issues and permitted the judgment debtors as well as the petitioner to lead their respective evidence. On appreciation thereof and disbelieving the petitioner's deposition as also the other oral evidence led by him, that the above-stated conclusion has been right. No indefeasible right has accrued in favour of the petitioner C.R. No.5611 of 2006 -3- merely because he was the highest bidder in the alleged auction. No interference in the impugned order, therefore, is called for. Dismissed. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited by him with the executing Court. May 13, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE