A PARVATHAM Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment-debtor in O. S. No. 336 of 1989 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, against the dismissal of her petition E. A. No. 4 of 1998 filed by her under Order 21, Rule 90 read with Section 47, C.P.C., to set aside the Court auction sale held on 16-7-1997, has filed the present appeal before this Court.

(2.) The first respondent herein Bank of Baroda obtained a mortgage decree against the appellant herein in O. S. No. 336/89 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur and brought the suit properties for Court auction sale in E. P. No. 14/93 and in the Court auction held on 16-7-97, the 2nd respondent herein has purchased the properties for Rs. 14,79,000/-. According to the appellant herein, the value of the properties is around Rs. One Crore and even in 1993 the Amin's value itself was Rs. 60 Lakhs and the property had been sold for a very low value due to incorrect description of the properties in the sale proclamation and for want of proper publicity about the sale and due to material irregularities and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale, she filed E. A. No. 4/98 to set aside the sale. It was her case that the suit properties consist of three door numbers and the buildings are of Madras terraced and tiled buildings consisting of ground and first floors in an area of 17 cents in the heart of Tiruppur Town and the full and correct description of the properties have not been given in the sale proclamation and the real value of the properties is Rupees One Crore and for want of proper publication and material irregularities in the publication and conduct of the sale substantial injury has been caused to her and the properties have been sold for a very low price. She also contended that the entire properties need not have been brought for sale and even if a part of the properties had been brought for sale, the decree could have been satisfied.

(3.) The respondents herein contested the application by filing separate counter-affidavits. It is stated that there was proper publication for sale and the properties had been sold for the due and correct price and the petition was filed to protract the execution proceedings.