IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 2701 of 2009 Date of Decision: 6.7.2009 Haryana Financial Corporation ....Petitioner. Versus Anil Gautam ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Jarnail Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The defendant has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 4.9.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, which on appeal was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide order dated 19.1.2009 (Annexure P-2) whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent for interim injunction was allowed and the defendant was restrained from recovering the balance amount of auction money. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction claiming that he was the highest bidder in auction held on 5.6.2006 of the land measuring 16 kanals and got the same for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. It has been pleaded that the plaintiff had already deposited a sum of Rs.3,59,000/- out of the aforesaid amount. It had come to the notice of the plaintiff that the aforesaid land had already been sold to Mohabat Singh vide sale deed dated 20.8.1998 and CR No. 2701 of 2009 -2- mutation Nos. 5246 and 5248 had been entered and sanctioned in his favour. The plaintiff has prayed that since the defendant is not in a position to deliver the possession of the land to him, therefore, the defendant be restrained from recovering the balance amount of the auction money. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. The trial court while allowing the application of the plaintiff- respondent has, in para 13, noticed as under:- “13. If it is presumed that there is any such provision in the mortgage deed, that the corporation is competent to sell the mortgaged property without intervention of the court, then the question arises why the corporation has not taken any such steps to realize its amount after taking the possession or management of the oil mill. In these peculiar circumstances, it is not fair to forget that plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser. He had already deposited about Rs.3,60,000/- with defendant against the suit land upon which defendant has no control till date. Though, in view of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the mortgagee, i.e. defendant, has power to sell the mortgage property, but defendant has not shown bonafide intention to recover its amount in compliance of Section 29 of the CR No. 2701 of 2009 -3- Act as well as 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. If plaintiff continued to deposit the entire amount as per agreement to the defendant and later on defendant failed to deliver the possession of the suit land to him, then definitely plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss because defendant would not compensate the interest on the amount so deposited till delivery of the possession of the suit land. Therefore, in view of the above observation, I am of this view that plaintiff has been able to prove a prima facie case in his favour. Therefore, defendant is hereby restrained to effect the further recovery of the loan as per agreement dated 30.1.2007 but till defendant delivered the possession of the suit land to plaintiff after taking action against mortgagor Ranbir Singh and Shish Pal under Section 29 of the Act and 69 of the Transfer of Property Act....”. The said order of the trial court was affirmed by the Additional District, Patiala, in appeal vide order dated 19.1.2009. No illegality or perversity could be found in the orders passed by the courts below warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. Nothing contained in this order shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. July 6, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE