BALJIT SINGH Vs. GULAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AUCTION -purchaser Baljit Singh, who was successful in the Executing Court, but has been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court, has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge judgment dated 10.08.2009 (Annexure P -5) passed by lower appellate court i.e. learned Additional District Judge, Ambala.

(2.) GURDEV Singh filed suit, which was decreed for recovery of Rs.2,25,000/ - against respondents no.l to 11. Gurdev Singh - decree -holder (DH) filed execution petition for execution of the said decree. In execution petition, land of Gulab Singh - respondent no.1/judgment -debtor (JD) no.l was attached. On 17.09.2004, some of the JDs filed objections (Annexure P -1) under Order 21 Rules 58, 59 and 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short - CPC) against the said attachment. On the same day, the attached property was auctioned for sale in execution petition. Present petitioner Baljit Singh, who is son of original DH Gurdev Singh (since deceased) was the highest bidder. He deposited 25% of the auction money on 20.09.2004 because 18.09.2004 and 19.09.2004 were holidays. Petitioner also deposited the balance auction money on 01.10.2004. However, prior to it, some of the JDs including JD no.l Gulab Singh filed application Annexure P -2 under Order 21 Rules 89, 90 and 84 CPC on 28.09.2004. It was inter alia alleged in the application that sale be not confirmed because objections Annexure P -l against attachment were still pending. It was also alleged that 25% of the auction money was not deposited on the day of auction, but was deposited after three days on 20.09.2004. It was also alleged that JDs were ready with decretal amount and additional amount of 5% of the auction money, as required by Order 21 Rule 89 CPC. They be permitted to deposit the same and the sale be set aside.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.