ILAM SINGH Vs. VITH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before the executing Court of Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar an application under Section 47 read with Section 151, C.P.C. filed by the judgment-debtor was dismissed tin 18-9-1985. The judgment-debtor filed a revision petition before the respondent No. l which was also dismissed on 3-12-1986. The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the said orders of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and wants a command to protect his possession over the land in question.

(2.) The facts may be put in brief compass. The respondent No. 3 is said to have filed Civil Original Suit No. 140 of 1980 for performance of a contract for sale on 9-1-1980 and in the alternative had prayed for refund of the consideration amount, which was Rs. 8000.00. The suit was decreed on 25-12-1982 for an amount of Rs. 8000.00 with pendente lite interest and future interest at the rate of 24% and 12% respectively. A sum of Rs. 6,574.75 was allowed as costs. The respondent No. 3 put the decree in execution on 2-1-1983 and claimed an amount of Rupees 17,892/- in his execution application. The respondent No. 3 wanted the decree to be executed through sale of land mentioned in the execution application. The said land was put to auction in the execution and, the respondent No. 3 was permitted by the Court to participate in the auction, which was to be held for sale of the land. This is said to have been done by the executing Court at the back of the petitioner. A big chunk of land measuring 29 Bighas and over 2 Biswas was proposed to be sold by auction to satisfy the decretal amount. The respondent No. 3 had shown the cost of the said land in the execution proceedings as Rs. 73000.00 in 1976.

(3.) . On 15-3-1984 the decretal amount was shown by the office of the executing Court as exceeding Rs. 20,000.00 for which sale proclamation was issued. On 10-12-1984 the auction is said to have taken place and the decree holder offered an amount of Rupees 23,500/- which was accepted as the highest bid. The executing Court did not disperse with the requirement of deposit of one-fourth amount under law nor was one-fourth amount deposited by the decree holder as required by law. The bid was accepted without any payment having been made by the decree holder.