(1.) CM-21805-CII-2019 The application is ordered as prayed for. Annexures P-3 and P-4 are taken on record. CR-2524-2019 The petitioner in this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, laid a challenge to the order dated 23.04.2018 Judge (Senior Division), Payal. The said execution proceedings arose out of as the said judgment and decree were ex parte in nature, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set it aside. In the meanwhile, the decree holder initiated execution proceedings in relation to the said judgment and decree. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an application in the pending execution petition to stay further proceedings owing to the pendency of the Order 9 Rule 13 CPC application.
(2.) By order dated 23.04.2018, the executing Court directed the petitioner to create a fixed deposit for a sum of Rs.7,10,000/-, being the principal amount of Rs.5 lakhs along with interest thereon. This fixed deposit was to be drawn up in the name of the decree holder but kept in judicial custody till the proceedings attained finality. Subject to these conditions, the executing Court granted stay of further proceedings. Aggrieved by the conditions imposed by the executing Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal in CAO Reg. No.76 dated 16.05.2018 before the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur.
(3.) However, by order dated 13.02.2019, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner would inform this Court that as the execution proceedings were not stayed due to the failure on the part of the petitioner to create a deposit as directed, the properties belonging to the petitioner were brought to sale, as is evidenced by Annexures P-3 and P-4. Significantly, the said properties were purchased by none other than the respondent-decree holder, after obtaining necessary permission from the executing Court.