Satyawan v. State Of Haryana & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.1949 of 2016 Date of decision: 17.03.2016 Satyawan ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH * * *

Present:

R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.

***** Darshan Singh, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 24.2.2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Fatehabad vide which the learned Executing Court had released the vehicle while dismissing the execution application being fully satisfied. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was auction purchaser of Jeep No.HR-62-1536 in the open auction owned by respondent No.3. He has deposited the entire amount on 3.7.2015 but the learned Executing Court has released the said vehicle without issuing any notice to the petitioner. He contended that as the petitioner had deposited the entire amount, the learned Executing Court was not justified in passing the impugned order without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. The learned Executing Court has categorically mentioned that the decretal amount has been deposited by the Judgment Debtor and the

CR No.1949 of 2016 -2sale was not confirmed. Till the date of passing of the impugned order as the sale was not confirmed, so the title of the jeep in question has not vested in the present petitioner, the auction purchaser. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case Canara Bank and others vs. Apple Finance Ltd. And others 2008 AIR (Bombay) 16 has laid down that until the Court accepts offer by confirmation of sale there is no binding contract. The auction purchaser/offerer would have no locus or any crystallised right in the property to be purchased till sale is confirmed. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also laid down in case Navaikha and sons versus Sri Ramanya Das and others 1970 AIR (SC) 2037 that the property does not vest in auction purchaser before the sale is confirmed.

In the instant case also, it is an admitted fact that the sale of the jeep in question was not confirmed by the learned Executing Court and before that the decretal amount has been paid by the Judgment Debtor to the Decree Holder. The rights of the petitioner has been taken care of by the learned Executing Court as the entire auction amount has been ordered to be returned to the auction purchaser. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Consequently, the present revision petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed.

March 17, 2016 (DARSHAN SINGH) ps JUDGE