IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 389 of 2009 Date of Decision: 06.04.2010 State Bank of India ..Appellant Versus Suresh Kumar and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate with Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent No. 3. *** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) This appeal challenges the order of a learned Single Judge dated 30.4.2009 passed on the first date of hearing directing respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) to deposit the entire recoverable amount of Rs. 64 lacs and further ordering that on deposit of the entire amount of the auction the mortgaged property would stand released and thus disposing of the writ petition itself. This appeal is taken up for hearing with consent of all counsel. 2. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the learned Single Judge which disposes of the writ petition itself notices the existence of an auction purchaser and also directs the respondent bank to refund the amount deposited by him. However, the learned Single Judge perhaps failed to notice that writ petitioner did not join the auction purchaser who had deposited Rs. 1,05,25,000/- by 16.12.2008 LPA No. 389 of 2009 [2] as a party to the petition and whose vested rights have been directly affected by the impugned order passed by him. In our view whatever would be the merits in the rival claims, the auction purchaser does have vested rights particularly when he had deposited the bid amount, therefore, before passing any order, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted to him. Since the auction purchaser had not been impleaded as a party to the writ petition and also not arrayed as respondent in this appeal, therefore, he was permitted to be impleaded in this Court as a party vide order dated 17.11.2009 passed in C.M. No. 1586-LPA of 2009 moved by him. 3. In view of the fact that vested rights of the auction purchaser have been directly affected by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and remit back the matter to the learned Single Judge for a fresh decision after impleading the auction purchaser as a party-respondent to the writ petition and affording of an opportunity of being heard to him as well as other parties to the writ petition. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. It will be open for the parties to assert their rival claims before the learned Single Judge. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on 24.05.2010. 4. Status quo upto the next date of hearing be maintained and thereafter it will be open for the learned Single Judge to pass any further order with regard to the status quo or to grant any further relief as deemed fit in the matter. 5. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE 06.04.2010 'ravinder'