KESAR SINGH Vs. HARBHAJAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order passed by the Executing Court dtd. 18/11/2017 by which, application filed by the petitioner for the issuance of the Sale Certificate in respect of the property which was purchased by the petitioner-applicant under the auction as ordered by the Court while hearing the execution application No.3 of 2000 dtd. 19/1/2013 titled as Harbhajan Kaur and others Vs. Jagdeep Singh and others for the satisfaction of the decree dtd. 1/12/2008, was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that respondents No.4 and 5 suffered a decree in favour of the decree holders i.e. respondents No.1 to 3 on 1/12/2008, for the execution of which, respondents No.1 to 3 filed execution application No.3, dtd. 19/1/2013 titled as Harbhajan Kaur and others Vs. Jagdeep Singh and others. Respondents No.4 and 5 i.e. judgment debtors were proceeded ex parte and during the pendency of the execution petition, the property belonging to respondents No.4 and 5 was attached and, thereafter, was ordered to be sold so as to satisfy the judgment and decree dtd. 1/12/2008.

(3.) It is a conceded position that keeping in view the order passed by the Executing Court, the property of respondents No.4 and 5 which was attached and was sold in the auction held on 1/10/2015 and the petitioner purchased the said property measuring 4 kanal 3 Marla in the open auction for a consideration of Rs.2,86,500.00. The auction amount was deposited by the petitioner being the auction purchaser in the Court and out of the auction money deposited by the petitioner, a sum of Rs.2,79,000.00 was released in favour of respondents No.1 to 3 for the satisfaction of decree dtd. 1/12/2008. Though, the Executing Court was required to confirm the sale as the property was sold in the execution as ordered in the execution proceedings but after the decree was satisfied, no one appeared on behalf of the decree holder and the said execution application was dismissed in default. Though, the said execution application was dismissed in default, the Court did not confirm the sale in favour of the petitioner though, no objection qua the said auction was ever raised by the judgment debtors, who had already been proceeded ex parte.