SATYANARAIN BAJORIA Vs. RAMNARAIN TIBREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2.) WITH the counsel of learned counsel for the parties the appeal itself was heard and is being disposed of.

(3.) THE appellants/ Judgment-debtor on 11/11/1978 i.e. within 60 days, on coming to know of the sale, filed a petition under Order 21 rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale. THE plea of the judgment-debtor in the application for setting aside the sale was that he had no knowledge of the case whatsoever and all the steps had been taken ex parte and without the knowledge of the judgment-debtor by concealing facts. No process had been served on the judgment-debtor and reports have been obtained in collusion with the process peon. It was pleaded that the amount of the decree had been satisfied by the judgment-debtor and nothing left unsatisfied. THE decree-holder, had suppressed all notices, summonses and got served "balabala" i.e. merely on papers without actual service. It was also pleaded that the notice published in the local paper showing incorrect number of case and incorrect name of the court was to misguide the judgment-debtor and due to this irregularity and fraud played, the judgment-debtor could not contest the case in time and now it transpired from the order sheets of the case that the decree-holder had got the property of the judgment-debtor sold.