Lakhvir Singh Vs State Bank of India and Others

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 10 Oct 2013 Case No.: R.A. No. 149-CII of 2013 in C.R. No. 2117 of 2006
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Case No.: R.A. No. 149-CII of 2013 in C.R. No. 2117 of 2006

Hon'ble Bench

L.N. Mittal, J

Advocates

R.S. Mittal and Mr. Chander Shekhar, for the Appellant;

Final Decision

Dismissed

Judgement Text

Translate:

L.N. Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 20540-CII of 2013:

1. Allowed as prayed for.

R.A. No. 149-CII of 2013:

This is application by petitioner for review of order dated 11.09.2013 passed by this Court, whereby revision petition filed by the review-applicant

was dismissed.

2. I have heard learned senior counsel for the applicant-petitioner and perused the case file.

3. Counsel for the applicant-petitioner contended that the Executing Court, while passing the impugned order dated 01.03.2006, failed to take

notice of application dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure P-1) filed by judgment-debtor (JD) no. 3 - petitioner, for deposit of the entire amount for

setting aside the auction sale. It was contended that in view of Order 21 Rule 89 of the CPC (in short - CPC), the auction sale should have been

set aside.

4. The aforesaid contention is completely misconceived and meritless.

5. Application (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner was not under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC. In fact, no provision of law was mentioned in the said

application. Irrespective thereof, the said application does not fulfill the requirements of Order 21 Rule 89 CPC. The petitioner mentioned in the

said application that he was ready to deposit all the amount, as per law, provided the auctioned land was transferred in his favour exclusively, by

way of registered sale deed. However, this was not permissible under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC because the land did not belong to the petitioner

alone, who was only co-sharer therein. Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC, on deposit of requisite amount, auction sale of the land is set aside and the

land reverts to the owners. In the instant case, however, the petitioner repeatedly mentioned in the application (Annexure P-1) that on deposit of

the amount by him, the auction should be confirmed in his favour. This is not permissible under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC. There is no ground for

review of impugned order dated 11.09.2013 within the parameters of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The Review Application is completely misconceived

and meritless and is accordingly dismissed.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Flags Digital Arrest Scams
Oct
27
2025

Story

Supreme Court Flags Digital Arrest Scams
Read More
Supreme Court Pulls Up States Over Stray Dogs Case:
Oct
27
2025

Story

Supreme Court Pulls Up States Over Stray Dogs Case:
Read More