- (1.) Heard Sri Shashi Nandan learned Senior Counsel alongwith Sri Vijay Prakash for the petitioner, Sri Manish Tiwari for the respondent No. 1 - decree holder and Sri S.K. Shukla for the auction purchaser - respondent No. 2. The dispute falls within a very short campus in this petition which assails the order passed by the Court below rejecting the application moved by the petitioner for consigning the execution proceedings in Execution Case No. 44 of 2004. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petition be disposed of finally as no further affidavits are necessary, the issue involved being purely legal.
(2.) The background in which the said application came to be moved is that the property in dispute became subject matter of attachment during execution proceedings on 10th March, 2005. The petitioner is stated to have purchased the property from the judgment-debtor on 12th January, 2006. In between the attached property was put to auction which took place on 19th October, 2006 in which the respondent No. 2 alleges to have purchased the property. Immediately thereafter, upon making the deposits on 15th November 2006, the petitioner moved an application on 21st November 2006 under Order XXI Rule 89 C.P.C., praying for setting aside the sale which was numbered as Application No. 3-C. Objections were filed to the said application by the decree holder and the auction purchaser both, confined only to locus of the petitioner to move the said application. The said objections were heard and ultimately the application filed by the petitioner came to be allowed on 7th August, 2007. The decree holder and the auction purchaser both filed revisions against the said order dated 7th August, 2007 before this Court. The revision filed by Sanjai Batra the auction purchaser was numbered as Civil Revision No. (12) of 2008 which was dismissed as withdrawn by the following order: BY THE COURT After the matter was heard for some time, learned counsel appearing for the applicant made a prayer to dismiss the instant revision as withdrawn in as much as the same is not maintainable. Prayer made is allowed. Revision stands dismissed as withdrawn. Dated 122.2008 Sd/-Krishna Murari, J.
(3.) The revision filed by the respondent No. 1 decree holder was dismissed on 14th July, 2009 by the following order: Hon'ble Devi Prasad, J. The revisionist has purchased a property which is subject matter of execution proceeding. The respondent has filed an objection which was opposed by the revisionist. Learned trial Court has recorded a finding that in view of the provision contained in Order XXI Rule 89 CPC, any person having interest in the property in dispute shall have right to file objection. The objection filed by the respondent as Paper No. 3-Ga has been accepted by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad. The order does not seem to suffer from any impropriety or illegality. The revision is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.;