JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

The petitioners are the successors-in-interest of the auction purchaser-Late Sh.Mahipal, who was declared as the highest bidder in a court auction held on 4th May, 2001, with respect to the land measuring 42 Kanals 18 marlas land located in Village Silokhera. The court auction was confirmed on 28th February, 2008 and the sale certificate was ordered to be issued on 10th September, 2008. It is stated that the since the property is on lease, therefore, the petitioners should be delivered a symbolic possession of the property purchased by them through the court auction. The entire sale consideration has already been deposited by the petitioners.

2. The petitioners assail the correctness of orders dated 7th April, 2017 and 14th September, 2017 passed by the Executing Court. The Executing Court has culled out the following issues for adjudication:-

"1 Whether the applicant/objector Sunita Jha is liable to be impleaded as LR of Late Dhirrender Brahamchari, JD No.2 OPA (onus on applicant/objector Sunita Jha).

2. Whether the sale in favour of auction purchaser Mahipal is liable to be set aside on the grounds alleged by applicant/objector Sunita Jha?OPA (onus on applicant/objector Sunita Jha).

3. Whether the sale in favour of auction purchaser Mahipal is liable to be set aside on the grounds alleged by applicant/objector M/s Aparna Studio? OPA (onus on applicant/objector M/s Aparna Studio).

4. Whether the sale in favour of auction purchaser Mahipal is liable to be set aside on the grounds alleged by applicant MGF Developer Ltd.? OPA (onus on applicant/ objector MGF Developer Ltd.)

5. Whether the objections filed by the applicants/ objectors are not maintainable in the present form, as per the provisions of law? OPAP (Onus on auction purchaser Mahipal).

6. Relief."

3. Since this Court is of the considered view that the matter is required to be remitted back to the Executing Court, hence, the detailed facts are not being noticed here by this Court. However, the relevant facts in brief as stated in the petition are as under.

4. In a civil suit, filed by the Punjab National Bank against the Shiva Gun Factory and late Swami Dhirender Brahmchari, a judgment and decree for recovery of the amount was passed on 16th August, 1990. The execution petition filed in order to execute the decree was transferred to the competent court at Gurugram. Initially, the Court attached the said property in the year 1993. Late Swami Dhirender Brahmchari filed an objection petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') which was not pressed, resulting in its dismissal on 8th May, 1983. Thereafter, the court issued the warrants of sale. On 1st December, 2000, an application filed by Murli Chaudhary, an associate of the judgment debtors to stay the auction process of the property was rejected by the executing Court. Another application was filed on 3rd May, 2001 under Section 47 read with Order XXI, Rule 58 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 was filed by M/s Aparna Studio Private Limited, allegedly in collusion with the judgment debtors. On 4th May, 2001 in the public auction the property was sold and the petitioners' father Late Sh.Mahipal was declared as the highest bidder. M/s Aparna Studio Private Limited filed another application on 10th May. 2001. Swami Surya Nand filed an objection petition on 30th May, 2001. Sh.Laxman Chaudhary filed the objections on 22nd September, 2001. According to the case of the petitioners, all the objections raised were almost identical. The objection petitions filed by M/s Ap