GEETABAI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B. R. Prasanna, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. Notice in this petition has been issued to all the respondents.

(2.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 2 and 3 are served and service on them has been held sufficient. The respondent No. 2 has not appeared.

(3.) AN application under Order 21, Rule 72 (3) had been filed by the revision petitioners for setting aside of the execution sale. The Court below rejected the application. The applicant who had moved the application for setting aside of the sale has come up before this Court and filed the Civil Revision. That in para 3 of his objections/application u/o. 21 Rule 72 (3) CPC it has been alleged that Sy. No. 35 of Hankuni Village put for auction has been the ancestral property and it is asserted, the said property could not be put for auction. Their further plea is that if the sale is held, the minors will be put to harassment and their shares will be affected. The Execution Court rejected the application and did not decide the question whether the property subject-matter of revision petition is ancestral property. That the applicants claimed that they had the right in the said land by birth and they were entitled to separate possession and their share could not be sold. But the said question was not decided or considered and was left for being decided in the separate suit for share. The Court should have considered that aspect of the matter. But without applying his mind, prima facie, for the purpose of execution case, the Court rejected the application. A contention has been raised on behalf of the revision petitioners that for non-compliance with the provisions of the Order 21, Rule 64 also the sale itself has been null and void.