L BALU Vs. PERIASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above revision by the judgement-debtor is directed against the order passed by the II Additional Subrodinate Judge, Salem in E.P. 67 of 1984 in O.S. 143 of 1981, confirming the sale in respect of Itmes 2 and 3, on the ground that the sale of these items amounted to excessive execution being in violation of O.21, R.64, C.P.C.

(2.) The first respondent filed O.S. 143 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 99,275 with future interest. The suit was decreed. The first respondent field E.P. 67 of 1984 under O.21, Rr.43, 64, 66 and 68, C.P.C. in respect of three items of properties. Items 1 and 2 were immoveable properties, while Item 3 was the negative print of a Tamil film with sound track. The value of the first item was shown in the E.P. as Rs. 30,000, the second item as Rs. 30,000, and the third item as Rs. 10,000. The execution petition was for a sum of Rs. 1,37,425. During the pendency of the execution petition, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 30,000 making the balance to be realised as Rs. 1,07,425. All the three items were brought for sale. Item 1 was sold for Rs. 1,15,000. Thereafter the sale of Items 2 and 3 were held. The 4th respondent herein purchased items 2 and 3. On 11-2-1985 the sale in respect of itmes 2 and 3 in favour of the fourth respondent was confirmed. The petitioner challenges the correctness of the above order of confirmation.

(3.) Thiru T.D. Vasu, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the balance of the decree amount that was outstanding on the date of the sale was adequately met by he sale of item 1 and that the court officer ought not to have gone ahead with the sale of items 2 and 3, and that this excessive execution was in contravention of O.21, R.64, C.P.C. and the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court and that there fore the sale in respect of items 2 and 3 ought not to have been confirmed.