Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75099 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9354 of 2019 Petitioner :- Charan Singh Respondent :- Jee Sukh And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kharag Singh,Nitin Kumar Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- Manu Saxena Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. The present case has a long chequered history. One Jee Sukh and Sardar Singh had taken a loan from one Laxmi Kant Maheswary, present respondent no. 5, on 8.8.1973. A suit for recovery of money was filed by respondent no. 5 which was registered as Original Suit No. 1 of 1979 against Sardar Singh and Jee Sukh. During pendency of said suit, Sardar Singh had made payment to Laxmi Kant Maheswary and the suit was continued against Jee Sukh. The said suit was decreed on 20.12.1980 against Jee Sukh. No civil appeal was preferred by the judgment debtor and the judgment and decree became final. 2. Laxmi Kant Maheswary had filed Execution Case No. 44 of 1982 before the Munsif, Khurja, Bulandsahar. The property in question before the executing court was gata No. 578 measuring 0.4467 hectare. When the decree was not satisfied by the judgment debtor, the property in question was put to auction on 24.1.1984. The petitioner being highest bidder deposited Rs. 3000/- and bid was settled in his favour and, thereafter, he deposited the balance amount on 6.2.1984. Against the auction dated 24.1.1984 Jee Sukh filed Misc. Case No. 40 of 1984. The said case was dismissed on 10.10.1984. A revision was preferred against the said order being Revision No. 210 of 1984 which was dismissed on 4.4.1986. Jee Sukh challenged both the orders of court below before this Court through Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8333 of 1986, which was dismissed on 9.9.2003. 3. In the meantime, the auction purchaser/petitioner had approached the executing court for issuance of sale certificate. On 23.9.1984 an order was passed for issuance of sale certificate. Against the said order, Jee Sukh preferred Appeal No. 149 of 1994, which was dismissed on 31.7.2001. Petitioner, thereafter, moved an application before the executing court for verifying the deposit made in the auction proceedings on 30.9.1994. After verification of auction amount, sale certificate was issued on 16.4.2002. On the basis of said sale certificate name of petitioner was entered into the revenue records. The order of mutation was challenged by the sons of Jee Sukh i.e. respondent nos. 2 and 3, by filing Revision No. 168 of 2012-13 before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, which was dismissed on 13.7.2015. 4. Petitioner, thereafter, moved an application for delivery of possession before the executing court which was numbered as Paper No. 137-EC and on the said application, the executing court directed for delivery of possession and Amin Commissioner was appointed. The Amin Commissioner submitted a report for providing police force as well as boundaries of property in question alongwith map. It appears that the executing court on the basis of amin report passed an order on 23.8.2002 closing the execution proceedings of Execution Case No. 44 of 1982. Against the said order, petitioner preferred the Civil Revision No. 201 of 2002. Later on an application was moved for converting the said revision into misc. appeal under Section 104 CPC read with Order XXI Rule 103 CPC. The said application was allowed and case was renumbered as Civil Misc. Appeal No. 204 of 2007. The appellate court on 28.9.2019 by the order impugned dismissed the appeal on the ground that sale certificate has been executed in favour of Laxmi Kant Maheswary, the decree holder. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Through this writ petition, petitioner has tried to assail the order passed by the executing court as well as the appellate court on the ground that execution proceedings had not been carried out properly and appellate court had wrongly assumed that decree has been executed in favour of decree holder Laxmi Kant Maheswary. According to petitioner, the property of judgment debtor was put to auction sale in execution proceedings, which was purchased by petitioner being the highest bidder and the appellate court as well as executing court had wrongly recorded a finding that decree has been executed. 6. I have considered the material on record and from perusal of the same I find that the appellate court as well as the executing court has fell into error by holding that decree in question has been executed as sale certificate has been issued. It is apparent from the record that the property in question was put to auction which was purchased by the petitioner being the highest bidder. He had moved an application for issuance of sale certificate which was allowed by the executing court and sale certificate was issued. Thereafter, his name was mutated in the revenue records. Thereafter, application for delivery of possession was moved in which Amin Commissioner was appointed and the executing court had directed for delivering the possession to the petitioner. The report of Amin Commissioner does not suggest that the decree has been executed and possession has been given to petitioner. The appellate court also fell in error by holding that decree has been executed and possession has been given to the decree holder. Once the property in question was put to auction for realization of the decreetal amount and petitioner being the highest bidder purchased the same, executing court was duty bound to carry out the decree in entirety and see that possession was given to the auction purchaser. 7. Both the courts below fell into trap that while recording the finding that the decree in question has been executed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the order dated 28.9.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Bulandsahar in Civil Appeal No. 204 of 2007 and order dated 23.8.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anoopshahar, Bulandsahar, are illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law and, as such, same are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the executing court to get the decree executed in favour of petitioner, who is auction purchaser of the property which was put to auction during execution proceedings. 8. Recently, the Apex Court in case of Periyammal vs. V. Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507, issued necessary directions for the executing court throughout the country for expediting the execution proceedings. In view of above, executing court is hereby directed to proceed with the Execution Case No. 44 of 1982 and decide the same, in accordance with law, keeping in mind the dictum of Apex Court rendered in case of Periyammal (Supra) within a period of six months, from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 9. Writ petition stands partly allowed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Shekhar Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad