KAPLI SIDDANAGOUD Vs. GANGAWALA SIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment-debtor's application to set aside the sale has been turned down rightly by the learned Judge on the ground that there was no irregularity in conducting the sale. He has clearly held that the sale proclamation was served on the Judgment debtor. He remained quiet. The sale was conducted in the Court and the price offered by the auction purchaser in the sum of Rs. 11,500/- was adequate for the property. The present contention in the application under Order 21 Rule 90 of the C.P.C. that the property was more than valued could not be countenanced. He therefore rejected the application.

(2.) It is further noticed that the decree was for the sum of Rs. 9753/- and was given on 24-7-1985. The judgment-debtor was rep-resented by his Counsel. The application for setting aside the sale was filed just one day before the sale was about to be confirmed. By then the auction purchaser had deposited the amount for securing non-judicial stamps in the value of Rs. 810/- . The proclamation was effected on 30-7-1986. It was served on the judgment-debtor. It was also published by beat of tom-tom in Mangapur village. Notice of sale was put on the panchayat office notice board. No avenue for giving a wide publicity was left out. The auction purchaser had deposited 25 per cent of the bid amount in Court on 2-9-1986 which was the date on which the final bid was accepted. Therefore, the plea that the land is worth more and valued at Rs. 4000/- per acre has been rejected and the sale confirmed in favour of the auctk n-purchaser.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner- judgment debt made attempts to rely upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court regarding what constitutes material irregularity. Whatever may have been the facts of the case decided by the Allahabad High Court, the fact here is that he has not been able to point out the irregularity in his case. He did nothing from the time when he was served with the proclamation of sale till the sale was about to be confirmed. By his own conduct he has denied himself the legal rights he had. He cannot raise them after the sale is over, as rightly observed by the learned Munsiff to hold up the procedure to bring to sale the immovable property in execution to realise the fruits of the decree will not persuade the Court to set aside the sale at the sweet will and pleasure of the judgment-debtor. To take any other view is to set at naught the procedure prescribed to bring to sale the immovable property in execution of a decree.