Civil Revision No. 1687 of 1994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No. 1687 of 1994

Date of Decision: 17.11.2010

Chanan Singh

.....Petitioner

Versus

Nazar Singh and another

….Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present: None for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Jain, Advocatae for the respondent.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the

learned Executing Court on 9.3.1990, whereby an objection filed by the

petitioner against the sale conducted on 15.3.1986 was dismissed and the order

in appeal passed by the learned first Appellate Court,on 7.1.1994, affirming

the order passed by the learned Executing Court.

Nazar Singh obtained a money decree in the sum of Rs.25,197/-

against Jagjit Singh. Another money decree in the sum of Rs.54,807.75p was

obtained by Ajit Singh son of Naranjan Singh against said Jagjit Singh. In

execution of the decrees in favour of Nazar Singh and Ajit Singh, land of

Jagjit Singh, Judgment Debtor, measuring 23 kanals 11 marlas was put to sale

by way of auction. The same was purchased by Chatar Singh and Nazar Singh-

Civil Revision No. 1687 of 1994

-2-

Decree Holder, for Rs.85,000/-.

The present petitioner filed objections against the sale alleging,

irregularities, illegalities and fraud in the conduct of the auction. It is the case

of the petitioner that there was a money decree in his favour in the sum of

Rs.54,807.75p against Jagjit Singh and therefore, the sale of the land of the

Judgment Debtor, suffers from illegalities and irregularities and that in terms

of Section 73 of the CPC, the petitioner is entitled to ratable distribution of the

assets recovered from Jagjit Singh, Judgment Debtor.

The learned Executing Court found that the auction conducted on

15.3.1986 does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, in as much as the

auction has been conducted after effecting proper Munadi, including that on

the spot. The offer of the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- at the time

of hearing of the objections was found to be not tenable as it was found that

there has been considerable rise in the price of the agricultural land within a

span of last four years.

In appeal, the learned first Appellate Court found that there is no

document on record to prove that any decree is in favour of the petitioner and

as to when he filed the execution of the said money decree and in which Court,

it was pending. Consequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

When the revision petition came up for hearing before this Court

on 8.11.2010, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner

has not produced any document to show that there is decree, the basis to claim

ratable distribution of the sale proceeds or that the petitioner filed any

execution in respect of the property sold in favour of the respondent in an open

auction. Since none was present on behalf of the petitioner, hearing of the

petition was deferred to 10.11.2010. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner

on 10.11.2010 and even today, none is present on behalf of the petitioner.

Since the petitioner has not produced any document to show that

Civil Revision No. 1687 of 1994

-3-

any decree was granted in his favour or that the petitioner has filed any

execution, the petitioner cannot claim ratable distribution out of the sale

proceeds in favour of the respondent in pursuance of the auction conducted on

15.3.1986. Provisions of Section 73 CPC would only be attracted if any

application for execution of the decree against the same Judgment Debtor is

pending. In the absence of any such execution filed by the petitioner, the

reasoning given by the Courts below cann