DHARAM PAL Vs. HIRA JHARI MISHRA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment debtors invariably use all tactics in the book, and not in the book, to keep on objecting to the execution of the decree. This Execution First Appeal is one such totally frivolous case.

(2.) The challenge by the present appeal is to the impugned order of the executing court dated 2.2.2010 by which the objections which have been filed by the defendant/judgment debtor have been dismissed. Objections have been dismissed on various grounds. First ground is that the objections are barred by limitation. The second ground is that the earlier objections were filed to the sale certificate proceedings, and which objections were dismissed by the order dated 25.1.2008. It is also observed in the impugned order that the appellant/objector states that the property does not belong to him and if that is so it is not understood how the appellant would have locus standi. It may be noted that the appellant stated that the property had been transferred to one Sh. Harbir Singh. It is also relevant to note that Sh. Harbir Singh had filed objections to execution, and which objections were dismissed right till this Court. Also, the impugned order notes that the son of the appellant one Sh. Kunwarpal Singh had filed objections and which were dismissed.

(3.) Firstly, it is required to be stated that once execution proceedings are completed, and sale certificate is issued, then, the auction purchaser gets a complete right in the suit property. Such rights of auction purchaser are not rightly disturbed by courts. The object of law is that the bonafide purchaser at an auction being the auction purchaser after the sale proceedings are complete and sale certificate is issued, should not be harassed by means of applications for setting aside this certificate, of course, except on limited grounds.