Rajive Bhalla, J.:-The appellants challenge an order dated 14.12.2005, passed by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Sangrur, accepting the appeal filed by respondent no.1, reversing the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sangrur, dated 16.8.1999 and as a result setting aside the sale certificate issued in favour of the appellants.

2. Gurjit Singh, judgement-debtor/respondent no.2 executed an agreement to sell dated 27.7.1989, agreeing to sell 25 bighas and 11 biswas to one Seo Pal Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh. As Gurjit Singh, did not execute the sale deed, Seo Pal Singh filed a suit for specific performance on 12.3.1990. Gurjit Singh and Seo Pal Singh entered into a compromise whereunder, Seo Pal Singh agreed to give up his right to specific performance, subject to payment of a sum of Rs.1,23,000/- by Gurjit Singh. Consequently, a decree for recovery of Rs.1,14,000/- dated 16.5.1990 came to be passed against Gurjit Singh. Seo Pal Singh filed Execution No.62 on 25.9.1990. The property in dispute was ordered to be attached by the Executing Court, as is apparent from the attachment reports nos.246 and 247 dated 8.2.1991. Seo Pal Singh passed away and the execution was consigned to records on 24.5.1993. Sarabjit Kaur, his widow and Mukhtiar Kaur, his mother filed fresh Execution no.66 on 23.7.1993. The property in dispute was attached and thereafter put to auction on 2.9.1996. The appellants purchased the property for a sum of Rs.1,44,500/- plus 20,000/- paid to Mukhtiar Singh for discharge of his rights as a mortgagee. The sale certificate was issued on 1.3.1997.

3. At this stage, one Boria Khan, respondent no.1, filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure,praying that, the auction and the sale certificate be set aside. It is alleged that Gurjit Singh, the judgement-debtor executed two mortgage deeds in favour of Mohan Lal and Des Raj dated 17.7.1986 and 23.11.1987 for Rs.18,000/- and Rs.9,000/- respectively. On 9.5.1988, Boria Khan purchased the mortgagee rights from Mohan Lal and Des Raj by way of a registered sale deed. On 12.5.1986, Gurjit Singh executed an agreement to sell, 10 Kanals and 7 Marlas of this land for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Rs.27,000/- was paid to the mortgagees and Rs.18,000/- was paid to Gurjit Singh. Gurjit Singh, however, did not execute the sale deed, compelling Boria Khan to file a suit for specific performance on 14.8.1989. The suit was decreed, after contest on 2.12.1995. In execution of this decree, the Executing Court appointed a Local Commissioner to execute the sale deed in favour of Boria Khan. The sale deed was executed by the Local Commissioner on 21.2.1997.

4. Boria Khan filed objections to the sale in favour of the appellants and in essence alleged that as his rights, to the auctioned property flow from a prior purchase of mortgagee rights, a prior agreement to sell dated 12.5.1988 and a prior suit, filed on 14.8.1989 though decreed on 2.12.1995, the attachment of the property in dispute pursuant to the decree for recovery of money dated 16.5.1990 and its subsequent sale to the appellants would not effect his rights. It was further contended that the attachment and the sale would not be free from the obligations already incurred by Gurjit Singh under the agreement to sell dated 12.5.1988 and as a result the sale certificate, issued in favour of the auction purchasers has to be set aside. The appellants opposed the objections, by asserting that they had acquired rights of ownership as auction purchasers, under a valid Court auction, held pursuant to valid attachment and, therefore, prayed that the objections be dismissed.

5. The Executing Court dismissed the objections by holding that as Boria Khan had failed to prove his possession, he had no right to file objections under Order 21 Rule 97. It was also held that the rights acquired by the auction purchasers were affected by the decree passed in favour of Boria Khan on 2.12.199