Civil Revision No. 6092 of 2003 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6092 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.12.2010 Anand .....Petitioner Versus Smt. Shanti and others .….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of 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? Present: Ms. Namit Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) In execution of the decree for recovery of Rs.11,927/-, the auction of the property situated at village Buttani, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind, was conducted on 5.5.2003. Decree holder- respondent No. 1 was found to be the highest bidder of the property, which was attached in pursuance of the list of the property given by the decree holder on 29.9.2001. The present petitioner filed objections to the sale of the said property on 17.5.2003. The learned Executing Court dismissed the objections on 4.9.2003 on the ground that notice under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was given and property put to sale after fixing the sale 1 Civil Revision No. 6092 of 2003 (O&M) for three dates. The decree holder was the highest bidder, who paid Rs.8300/- on the spot and the remaining amount was deposited by the decree holder in treasury. The Executing Court found that if the objector was in possession of the property in dispute, he would have filed objections soon after attachment or sale. Therefore, the Executing Court inferred that the objections have been filed just to delay the proceedings. In appeal, the said order was affirmed by returning a finding that after sale, the objections under Order 21 Rule 58 of the CPC are not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the objections filed by the petitioner on 17.5.2003, were not under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. No provision of law was mentioned in the objections. It is, thus, contended that in fact, the objections are in terms of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, as the Objector is claiming to be owner and in possession of the immovable property, which has been sold in the execution of the decree. Therefore, such objections were required to be adjudicated upon in terms of Rules 98 and 101 of Order 21 CPC. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the Courts below suffer from patent illegality and irregularity. The petitioner is not party to the decree. It is asserted by the petitioner that his property is being put to sale in execution of a decree against the Judgment Debtor. Such objections are under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and are required to be dealt with under Order 21 Rules 98 and 101 CPC. Mere fact that the petitioner has not filed objections after attachment or at the time of settling the proclamation of sale, will not be determinative of the fact that the petitioner is not owner or in possession of the property. It is a disputed question of fact, which is required to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties, particularly when it is alleged 2 Civil Revision No. 6092 of 2003 (O&M) that the decree holder has been found to be auction purchaser and that too without seeking permission from the Executing Court. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Executing Court for decision of the objections afresh on merits, in accordance with law. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 13-12-2010 ds 3