STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. AJIT JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are by the decree-holder. The appellant a statutory bank, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,22,585.37 with cost and future interest against respondent No. 2 sometime in 1975. The suit was decreed with costs and future interest at 6% per annum on 7th April 1976. On 12th August 1976 the appellant filed an execution application for sale of suit property of the respondent No. 2. On this application the Executing Court issued the warrants of attachment on 25th August 1976. The property was auctioned on 15th June 1979 for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-. The appellant filed an objection against the sale and claimed that the reserved price of the property being Rs. 6,00,000/-, the sale was vitiated as the property was sold in violation of not only the reserved price fixed by the appellant but was contrary to the procedure required to be followed. Objection was filed by the judgment-debtor too. The property was purchased by Shri Ajit Jain and four others. The objections were contested by the auction purchasers. The Executing Court dismissed both the objections filed by the appellant and the judgment-debtor. The appellant, however, filed an appeal against dismissal of the objection and confirmation of the sale in favour of the auction purchaser. The order was set aside by the High Court as the objections had been dismissed without affording any opportunity to the objectors to lead evidence. In pursuance of the order passed by the High Court the Trial Court framed issues both in the objection filed by the judgment-debtor and the appellant and permitted the parties to lead evidence as well. The Trial Court dismissed both the objections and directed a sale certificate under O. XXI, R. 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to be issued in respect of the property in dispute in favour of auction purchasers. This order was challenged in first appeal before the High Court. Four of the auction purchasers stated before the Court that the auction sale may be set aside. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that since four of the auction purchasers stated, that the sale in the present case is void being in violation of mandatory provisions of law, hence the present application is maintainable and the sale was liable to be set aside without entering into another controversy. This order was set aside by the Division Bench.

(2.) The bank has now filed an appeal in this Court. We have heard the learned counsel for parties at length. When this appeal came up for hearing on 11th May 1994 we were of opinion that due to protracted litigation a decree obtained by the appellant as far back as 1976 has not been executed. Further Shri Ajit Jain who is the auction purchaser, has entered into possession and is continuing as such since past many years. In view of this we had passed following order :

(3.) In the circumstances we dispose of these appeals under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do substantial and complete justice between the parties. Shri Ajit Jain during course of arguments had agreed that he would not stick to the price of Rs. 1,90,000/- and was willing to pay substantial amount both to the bank and to the decree-holder so that the future litigation may be avoided provided his claim alone to the property was accepted. That in our opinion does not present any difficulty. Since four of the auction purchasers have voluntarily withdrawn from the auction they cannot have any right or claim over the property in dispute. In case they have contributed any amount towards payment of the auction amount they shall be entitled to claim refund from Shri Ajit Jain.