Madhya Pradesh High Court Sunita Sharma vs Paraspar Sahayak Co-Op.Bank Ltd


Madhya Pradesh :

W.P. No.3371/2007


Mr. A.K.Sethi, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Chetan Jain,

counsel for the petitioner.

He submits that notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is

necessary since respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the auction purchaser and respondent No.2 is the executing authority. He submits that in the writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the recovery certificate as also the consequential action of execution of sale certificate and delivery of possession which was in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and they will be affected by any order passed in favour of the petitioner. He has submitted that on...

To continue reading