Civil Revision No.4544 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4544 of 2008 Date of decision : 15.1.2009 Deepak Sayal .....Petitioner Versus Authorised Officer, IOB and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: None for the parties. S. D. ANAND, J. Even on the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner inspite of the calls during the day. (At that time, the petition was pending before a Coordinate Bench of this Court-T.P.S. Mann). The petition does not deserve to succeed on merits as well. The plaintiff- petitioner was the highest bidder at the auction of house No. 180-A, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, which was held on 26.12.2007. The sale had been held at the instance of respondent bank for realisation of certain amount of dues from the plaintiff-petitioner. As per the terms and conditions governing that auction, the petitioner/highest bidder was required to deposit a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- (which was otherwise inclusive of the earnest money of Rs.5,08,000/-) being representative of 25% of the bid amount. The plaintiff-petitioner defaulted in honouring that clause inasmuch as he did not make deposit of the amount aforementioned. In accordance with the terms and conditions governing the auction, the amount was liable to be forfeited. However, the plaintiff-petitioner delivered a letter to the respondent bank on that very day requesting the Civil Revision No.4544 of 2008 -2- **** latter to retain his bid in abeyance till the conclusion of Civil Writ Petition No.18809 of 2007 which was pending before this court. That plea of his was declined by the (authorised officer of the) banker by observing that the auction notice itself publicly indicated that tender/bid had been invited during the pendency of the Civil Writ Petition aforementioned. The plea raised by the plaintiff-petitioner that he had not been informed of the pendency of that petition was negatived. The authorised officer also noticed that the plaintiff-petitioner was not a genuine buyer and that he appeared to have given the bid at the behest of owners of that property because the draft representing the earnest money was found to have been got prepared by a named co-owner of the auction property. It is on the above premise that forfeiture of the earnest money of Rs.5,08,000/- was ordered by the authorised Officer of the banker. The impugned order Annexure P-4 also informed the plaintiff-petitioner that he had thereby lost all the claims he had over the auctioned property which shall by put up for resale in accordance with law. I have been through the grounds of appeal. There is nothing in the course thereof which could suggest that the facts recorded by the authorised officer in Annexure P/4 are incorrect. In that view of things, it is apparent that plaintiff-petitioner participated in the auction with the full knowledge of all the terms and conditions governing the auction/bid. The plaintiff-petitioner not having complied with those terms and conditions cannot be heard to claim a locus to obtain invalidation of the impugned order Annexure P-4 regarding forfeiture of the earnest amount. The petition shall stand dismissed in limine for want of prosecution and also on merits January 15, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No.4544 of 2008 -3- **** Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No