charge thereon, i.e., mortgage. The decree-holder would further disclose that the husband of the petitioner did not allow anybody to bid for the property in the process of auction, which was held on 29.11.2005. Plea is that Paramjit Singh had no right to sell the property which was under mortgage. The Appellate Court found it as a fact that warrant of attachment was issued on 25.7.2000, which was received with the report that the owner of the house so attached, i.e., Shri Ashok Kumar, was not present and his wife (present petitioner) stated to the Bailiff that the said property of Paramjit Singh has been purchased by them and thus they are now the owners of the same. It is, thus, noticed that the petitioner came to know of the charge on the property on 25.7.2000, whereas in the objection petition it is alleged that she learnt about this fact in November, 2005 and then filed this objection petition on 10.12.2005. It is noticed that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. It is seen that the objections have been filed with delay which is substantial and has also remained un-explained. The petitioner has not been able to justify her action in keeping quiet to contest the execution about which she came to learn in July, 2000. Even the report of the auctioneer which is dated 22.4.2004 would show that the petitioner had told the auctioneer that she had purchased the house from Jang Singh, who had in turn, purchased the same from Paramjit Singh. Thus, the petitioner was well aware of the pendency of the execution, but still did not choose to file the objections till the time she did so.
