T RUDRAPPA Vs. GOWRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is a civil revision under Section 115 arises out of an order dated 17-11-1995 delivered by k. Sathyamoorthy holla, principal district judge, kolar, dismissing application-i.a. 10 moved by the judgment debtor-revision applicant.

(2.) the facts of the case in brief are that in a motor vehicles case No. 455 of 1988 decided on 18-12-1993, an award was made in favour of respondents for a sum of Rs. 1,51,925/-. The revision applicant did not pay the compensation amount inspite of it is being awarded and as such the application for execution was moved. The ashok leyland lorry bearing No. Cas-942 belonging to the judgment debtor-revision applicant was attached and was put to auction sale and finally the lorry was auctioned on 26-10-1995 and the purchaser has paid the entire bid money of Rs. 1,35,000/-. The judgment debtor on the same day filed written objection to the effect that there was no proper publication of sale proclamation or notice before conducting of the sale and so there has been irregularity in conducting the sale. This application was opposed. The learned district judge taking into consideration Provisions of order 21, rules 77 and 78 opined that when the sale which has become absolute and has been confirmed, cannot be questioned on the ground of irregularity and if there is any grievance, the judgment debtor has got remedy of filing a suit and rejected the judgment debtors application / objection. Having felt aggrieved by the above mentioned judgment and order of the learned principal district judge, kolar, the judgment debtor has come up in revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the main submission advanced by the learned counsel-sri d.o. kotresh is that when he had filed objection to the sale proclamation and its publication stating that the sale proclamation has not been published according to law and there is irregularity and the court below could not confirm the sale and make the sale absolute without first disposing of his objection and recording any finding if there has been any irregularity in sale. This contention of Sri d.o. kotresh, has been hardly contested by Sri j.g. chandra mohan, learned counsel for the purchaser-opposite party. The learned counsel submitted that there is no error or jurisdictional error in the order of the learned district judge. Sri j.g. chandra mohan invited my attention to the Provisions of order 21, Rule 78, C.P.C. and urged that in view of the Provisions of order 21, rules 77 and 78 of the Code of Civil Procedure, once the sale of movable property has taken place and the highest bidder has paid the sale price then the sale has become absolute and that it is not open to challenge on the ground of any illegality or irregularity in the conducting of sale or proclamation of sale and if there is any grievance regarding conducting the sale, publication etc., The party aggrieved by sale has the remedy of filing a civil suit as mentioned under order 21, Rule 78.