Sumit vs Mahabir Through Lrs And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 22002 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sumit vs Mahabir Through Lrs And Ors on 15 December, 2023

Author: Rajbir Sehrawat

Bench: Rajbir Sehrawat

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161305




CR No.7542 of 2023 (O&M)                              2023:PHHC:161305



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

143

                                     CR No.7542 of 2023 (O&M)
                       DATE OF DECISION: 15th DECEMBER, 2023

Sumit
                                                               .... Petitioner
                              Versus
Mahabir (since deceased) through LRs and others
                                                            .... Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT


Present:    Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

                                  ****

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section

115 of CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the

impugned order dated 23.11.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Civil

Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, whereby the fresh publication regarding

auction of the suit property has been issued, and the order dated

24.08.2023 (Annexure P-6), whereby the Executing Court has ordered

the respondent No.2 to forfeit the amount paid by the auction

purchaser/petitioner, with certain other prayers made in the present

petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner could not deposit 75% amount of the auction price within a

period of one week from the date of confirmation of the auction by the

Court because the Court had never confirmed the sale, as such.

                               1 of 3

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161305




CR No.7542 of 2023 (O&M)                              2023:PHHC:161305

Therefore, the petitioner could not be prejudiced for non-deposit of 75%

amount of the auction price. Accordingly, the Court below has wrongly

proceeded further to fix the fresh schedule of the auction by ordering

forfeiture of 25% amount deposited by the petitioner.

3. However, the perusal of the order passed by the Court below

shows that the Court below has passed only a conditional order for fixing

fresh schedule after granting opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the

balance amount of auction price. The petitioner has deliberately chosen

not to deposit the complete auction price as per the bid offered by him.

Therefore, the fresh auction schedule fixed by the Court below through

the conditional order; has rightly become operational. No fault can be

found with the process adopted by the Court below.

4. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised

objection qua forfeiture of 25% of the amount already deposited by the

petitioner, however, even on that count, the argument of learned counsel

for the petitioner does not have any substance. Forfeiture of amount was

the one of the terms of the auction only in which the petitioner had

participated. Therefore, the petitioner was well aware of the consequence

of forfeiture of 25% of the amount if he was to default in completing the

payment of the auction price. Hence, now the petitioner cannot shift the

blame towards anyone else.

5. Another fact which deserves to be noted, and which has

even been mentioned in the order passed by the Court below, is that the

execution is pending since the year 2018. The record also shows that the

judgment debtor has been making every possible effort to ensure that the

execution is not carried out to the logical end. At one stage, the judgment

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161305

CR No.7542 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:161305

debtor was even burdened with a cost of Rs.1.00 Lakh by the Court

below. Despite that, he has not permitted the things to move on. The

conduct of the petitioner and of the judgment debtor vehemently suggest

that there is a family connection between them. Otherwise, the petitioner

had no reason to first go for the auction and then not deposit the money

within time. This conduct of the petitioner as well, is in line of the

previous conduct of the judgment debtor.

6. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality

or perversity with the order passed by the Court below. Hence, the

present petition is dismissed.

15th DECEMBER, 2023                             (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
'sandeep'                                             JUDGE


      Whether speaking/reasoned:                Yes             No
      Whether Reportable:                       Yes             No




                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161305

                                 3 of 3