Mr. R.P. Nagrath, J.: - Petitioner is the auction purchaser of House No. 1490, Sector 9, Faridabad in the Court auction held on 09.08.2004 under the orders of Executing Court for a decree for recovery of money passed against respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 1-M/s Indian Oil Corporation is the decree-holder (DH). Petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 15.06.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by the executing court whereby applications filed by respondent no. 2-judgment debtor for setting aside ex parte order dated 04.05.2004 as well as application under Order XXI Rule 89 read with Rule 92 (though mentioned as Section 92) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for setting aside the sale, were allowed and the application of petitioner-auction purchaser for confirmation of the sale and delivery of possession was dismissed.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are that respondent no. 1 filed suit no. 721 of 1991 against respondent no. 2 for recovery of the amount of two loans which he obtained from his employer, namely; respondent no. 1. The amounts were borrowed by respondent no. 2-Judgment Debtor (JD) from his employer towards car loan and house building loan. The suit was decreed on 11.12.1996 by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridabad for recovery of Rs.2,77,297.79 ps. with interest @ 2.5% per annum. Respondent no. 2-JD filed appeal against the judgment and decree in which respondent no. 1-DH also filed cross-objections. Appeal filed by respondent no. 2- JD was rejected for non-deposit of court fee whereas the crossobjections filed by respondent no. 1-DH were allowed partly and it was held that on the amount of house building loan respondent no. 1-DH would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum and interest @ 2.5% per annum on the outstanding amount of car loan vide judgment and decree of the appellate court dated 15.01.2001.

3. Execution for recovery of the amount was filed by respondent no. 1-DH on 11.05.2001 praying for attachment and sale of house in question which was mortgaged in favour of respondent no. 1-DH.

4. Perusal of record of Execution No. 39 of 2001 would show that warrants of attachment of the house of respondent no. 2-JD were issued for 09.02.2002 and the bailiff made the report dated 02.02.2002 to the effect that house was lying locked for the past about three years and the attachment was proclaimed by beat of drum. It was directed that no one would be able to sell, mortgage or create any kind of incumbrance over the property. Since Presiding Officer of the executing court was on leave on the said date fresh warrants of attachment were again issued for 28.09.2002 and similar report was received proclaiming the attachment. That report is dated 26.09.2002 to the effect that the house was lying locked and the attachment was made by proclamation by beat of drum.

5. Thereafter, on application made under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC the executing court issued proclamation for sale of the house which was conducted by the court auctioner on 09.08.2004. The court auctioner submitted report to the effect that the petitioner was highest bidder and his bid for Rs.15.70 lacs was accepted. An amount of Rs.4 lacs being 25% of the auction money was received by the court auctioner on the fall of hammer and the court auctioner issued receipt (Annexure -C) to the auction purchaser. The court auctioner moved application to the executing court on 10.08.2004 and the amount of Rs.4 lacs was deposited in the Government treasury in State Bank of India, Faridabad vide treasury challan dated 11.08.2004. According to the petitioner auction purchaser, rest of the amount of auction money was also deposited on time.

6. It may also be noticed that respondent no. 2-JD had already filed CWP No. 13866 of 1990 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for declaring the impugned action of respondent no. 1-DH by issuing order dated 13.09.1990