C.R.No.6342 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6342 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.3.2011 The Kup Kalan Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd ….Petitioner Vs. Bikkar Singh and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.N. Malik, Advocate for respondent No.1. Jaswant Singh, J Petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 5.9.2009 (P.2) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Malerkotla whereby it's objection petition has been dismissed. Facts of the case are that Bikkar Singh-respondent No.1 (Decree Holder) filed a Civil Suit for recovery of Rs.82,800/- on the basis of a pronote executed by Amrik Singh-respondent No.2 (JD) and the Civil Suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Malerkotla vide its judgment and decree dated 11.6.1998. Thereafter, an execution No.32 dated 11.6.2004 was filed by the decree holder-respondent No.1 (Bikkar Singh) against the judgment debtor-respondent No.2 (Amrik Singh). Upon notice, the petitioner-objector filed objections against the execution petition and after hearing both the parties, learned Executing Court dismissed the objection petition, hence the present petition. C.R.No.6342 of 2009 #2# Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned Executing Court has grossly erred in dismissing the objection petition. It is further argued that the property under attachment is already owned by the objector-Society having purchased it in auction before its attachment and the execution application is the result of connivance of both the respondents i.e decree holder and the Judgment debtor. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has seriously opposed the revision petition and submitted that the learned Executing Court has rightly dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner- society. It is not in dispute that execution petition No.32 dated 11.6.2004 is filed for the execution of judgment and decree dated 11.6.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Malerkotla in a suit for recovery by Bikkar Singh. It is alleged that the property in question (attached) belonging to JD-respondent No.2 (Amrik Singh) had earlier been attached in an Arbitration award and put to auction and purchased by objector-Society and a sale Certificate dated 22.6.2001 was issued by the Deputy Registrar, Sangrur as the JD-respondent No.2 (Amrik Singh) earlier was working as a Secretary of the Society and he misappropriated an amount of Rs.5,12,754/-. OW3-Satpal Sharma has produced Sale Certificate dated 22.6.2001 on record but has not brought on record the auction file vide which the objector-Society had purchased the property of the JD- respondent No.2 prior to the judgment and decree dated 11.6.1998. Therefore, the learned Executing Court has rightly come to the conclusion C.R.No.6342 of 2009 #3# that if the property in dispute had already been purchased, then it ought to have been mutated in the name of the objector but there is nothing on record to show that any mutation of the property belonging to the JD-respondent No.2 has been sanctioned in favour of the objector-Society. Taking into account the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, it is apparently clear that the Sale Certificate was issued by the Competent Authority in favour of the petitioner-objector only on 22.6.2001 i.e much after the passing of judgment and decree dated 11.6.1998 and, therefore, the first charge on the property will be of decree holder- respondent No.1 and not of the petitioner-Society. The petitioner-objector has miserably failed to prove that the property under attachment is owned by the petitioner-Society before its attachment and in my opinion no interference can be made with the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 19.8.2009 (P.4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gurdaspur warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. March 16, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE