B.D.DHALIA, F.C. - (1.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on the failure of respondent No. 1 to pay back the loan advanced by the respondent No. 2, the latter sent a certificate of recovery to the Collector, Rohtak which was further entrusted to Tehsildar, Bahadurgarh who put the factory premises of respondent No. 1 to auction on 23.3.1988 for an amount of Rs. 8,92,000/- in favour of the respondent No. 3 and the said auction sale was confirmed by the Commissioner, Hissar Division on 2.6.1988, which according to the respondent No. 1 was not the adequate price of the factory premises and the machine installed therein. Therefore, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, vide his order dated 23.3.1994 kept Rs. 25 lacs as the minimum price of the disputed land and vide his subsequent order dated 21.4.1999 the review application was also dismissed and thereafter vide order dated 4.7.2001 respondent No. 2 was directed to re-auction the land, machinery and building within three months after completing all the formalities. Aggrieved by the said orders this revision petition has been preferred.
(2.) OPENING his arguments the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the auction was held in accordance with law and thereafter actual possession of the property in dispute was also delivered to the petitioner. He further argued that the petitioner is a necessary party in the litigation and consequently impugned orders, passed in the absence of/against the petitioner are void ab initio. Concluding his arguments he prayed for acceptance of this revision petition. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 argued that the impugned order dated 23.3.1994 is perfectly in accordance with law. He further argued that the respondent No. 3 was a necessary party who has also been arrayed as one of the respondents. He continued to argue that the petitioner has no right and locus standi to challenge the impugned orders; that the impugned orders are thus sustainable in law. Concluding his arguments he vehemently prayed for dismissal of this revision petition with costs.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 2 argued that the auction was held in accordance with law.;