ANNAPURNA INDUSTRIES Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 27-8-1992 passed in Execution Case No. 118 of 1987 by the learned Civil Judge, Bhadravathi, rejecting the application filed under O. 21, R. 90, IPC and ordering confirmation of the sale held by the Court on 24-4-1992 under O. 21 R. 92, CPC.

(2.) Judgement-debtors 1 and 2 in Execution No. 118/87 are the appellants before this Court, Respondent No. 1 - Syndicate Bank, Bhadravathi Branch filed O.S. 117/87 against the appellants and three others for recovery of loans advanced on the security of land of two acres with the buildings with the rice mill, poova mill and machineries in Hebbandi village of Bhadravathi Taluk in Shimoga District. The appellants and respondents 3 to 5 consented for a decree and the suit was decreed for Rs. 3,96,221.80 with interest. It appears respondent-1 Bank obtained similar decrees on the same property in three more suits in O.S. Nos. 118 of 1987, 119/87 and O.S. 120/87 on the file of the same court. The total liability in all the four suits came to a sum of Rs. 12,44,649.30 ps. inclusive of interest, costs etc. The Execution case No. 118/87 out of which the present appeal arises was for realisation of Rs. 5,63,435.50ps. The decree-holder prayed for recovery of that amount with subsequent interest and costs by sale of mortgaged properties. Notices of sale in the execution proceedings were issued to the judgement debtors. Appellants 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 were served but failed to take active part in the proceedings before the executing court. The court secured the verified statement filed by the decree-holder and on that basis issued sale proclamations and ordered sale of the properties by issuing successive proclamations to sell on 1-9-1990 and 5-9-1990 (2) 3-12-1990 and 18-12-1990 (3) 18-3-1991 and 30-3-1991 (4) 26-8-1991 and 9-8-1991 (5) 13-1-1992 and 31-1-1992 (6) 21-3-1992 and 28-3-1992. On all these dates the sale proclamations were returned unexecuted for want of bidders. Thereafter the proclamation issued for sale of the properties on the spot on 18-4-1992 attracted some bidders and the present auction purchaser respondent No. 2 was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs. 6,55,555/- and his bid of highest amount offered before the Court also on 24-4-1992 was accepted and he deposited 1/4th of the bid amount on the date the bid was accepted and the balance amount of Rs. 4,91,555/- on 1-6-1992 on the day on which the Court reopened after Summer Vacation.

(3.) Within the period allowed by law the appellants 1 and 2 made an application under Order 21, Rule 90 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale alleging that the property involved was worth more than Rs. 25,00,000/- and was sold for Rs. 6,55,555/- and there was material irregularity and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale and the boundary description of the property had not been properly described and prejudice had been caused to them in that there was low price realised. They also averred that they had contacted one M/s. Veereswara and Company of Shimoga who had agreed to buy the property at Rs. 9,25,000/- and that was an indication to show that the property worth more had been sold for lesser amount. These contentions were refuted by the decree-holder and the auction purchaser. According to them the property was worth the amount it fetched and that the machines and parts thereof had been tampered and were not in working order and therefore they could not have fetched higher amount. According to them the allegations of material irregularity and fraud in publishing the proclamations and conducting the sale were vague and were far from truth. They also alleged that the appellants were interested only in dragging on the proceedings and their conduct showed that they had all along kept quiet during the execution proceedings and they never took interest in the execution proceeding and they were therefore estopped from putting forth untenable contentions.