1 wp6681.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6681 OF 2011 _________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | orders or | Court's or Judge's Orders directions and | Registrar's orders | _________________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.V. Natu, advocate for the petitioner. ..... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J Date : 5th September, 2011. . The present petitioner is the legal heir of original judgment debtor. The decree holder had instituted a suit for recovery of amount. The said suit came to be decreed. Thereafter, the Execution Proceedings were filed. The judgment debtor did not pay amount, the Executing Court auctioned the property to the extent of 3 Acres from the northern side in favour of the father of the present respondent. Thereafter, the auction was confirmed. The validity of auction was challenged by the father of the petitioner. Same was rejected upto the High Court. Thereafter the present respondent filed 2 wp6681.11 application on the basis of the sale certificate issued to him on 18.04.2002 for possession. The petitioner filed objection contending that the sale certificate is not registered and the area of which the possession is sought is not in consonance with the sale certificate. The Trial Court rejected the said objection and issued possession warrant under Order 21 Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved thereby, the present Petition is filed. 2. Shri Natu, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the area of which the possession is sought is not in accordance with the sale certificate. The sale certificate is not on proper stamp as per Article 16 of the Bombay Stamp Act. As the sale certificate is not on proper stamp, the respondent is not entitled for possession. It is further contended that the sale certificate is in the nature of conveyance and same 3 wp6681.11 is also required to be registered. 3. The area of which the warrant of possession is issued is of 3 Acres. The same also forms a subject matter of the said sale certificate. As far as objection of registration is concerned, the same is not tenable in view of the Section 17(2)(xii) of the Indian Registration Act, which exempts the sale certificate in respect of the property sold by auction from registration. As far as, the objection of stamp duty is concerned, same would be for the Government. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the stamp duty is not proper, the Court can impound the same. However, even the perusal of the objection shows that the objection about insufficiency of stamp was never raised before the Executing Court. In view of this, the same can not be allowed to be raised for the first time in the present Writ Petition. Other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the legal 4 wp6681.11 heirs are not added in the said sale certificate, cannot be gone into as the auction proceedings were challenged by the petitioner's father upto High Court and the said challenge has failed. Moreover, if other legal heirs have not disputed this fact, the judgment debtor has no locus standi to dispute the same. 4. In view of the above, there is no merit in the Writ Petition. The Petition is rejected, however, with no order as to costs. (S. V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE ga s/wp6681.11