RAMANLAL PREMCHAND SHAH Vs. INDUMATI BHAGWANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the request and with the consent of the parties both these revision applications are ordered to be hoard together and are being despised of by a common judgment and order.

(2.) Both these revision applications arise out of an order passed by the executing Court in Special Execution Applications No. 10 of 1980 and 50 of 1980. It appears that the judgment-creditor(s) in furtherance of the execution of the decree obtained by them got the sale proclamation issued in respect of the land belonging to the judgment-debtors but the auction sale was adjourned. Since it was adjourned for a period of more than 30 days it was contended that in view of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 69 of the Civil Procedure Code fresh sale proclamations should be issued. It was inter alia contended that the price of the land sought to be sold in execution at present would be about Rs. 80.00 lacs while the estimated price shown in the sale proclamations earlier issued was around Rs. 20.00 lacs. From the record of the revision applications it is not clear as to how much are decretal dues but it appears that the price of the land as stated by the judgment-debtors if realised would be in far excess of the decretal dues.

(3.) There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the auction gale was adjourned for a period of more than thirty days and therefore the provisions of Order XXI Rule 69 are attracted. However it is clear that the objection raised by the judgment-debtor has been rejected by the learned trial Court Judge on the ground that the objection as regards non-compliance of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 69 is new one and that the sale was never adjourned by the Court of its own but it was adjourned at the instance of the judgment-debtor and become the sale could not be proceeded further. Moreover there is alteration in the sale proclamations and therefore the trial Court held that fresh sale proclamations were not necessary The trial Court further observed that the sale was stayed for more than one year and at the most what was necessary was to make announcement of sale by beat of drum as provided in Rule 54 of Order XXI of C. P. Code and it was not necessary to draw fresh proclamations. The trial Court rejected the objections submitted by the judgment-debtors on the aforesaid grounds.