PREMWATI Vs. SM SATAYAWATI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above cases relate to the same order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kanpur, and may conveniently be disposed of by one common judgment.

(2.) The material facts lie within a short compass. Shrimati Satayawati Jain along with some other persons obtained a decree against Shrimati Premwati, who is the appellant in Execution First Appeal No. 109 of 1952 and the applicant in Civil Revision No. 713 of 1952, on 29-10-1949. It was a final decree for sale in a mortgage suit. An application for execution was made by the decree-holders on 16-2-1950. Notices fixing the date for settlement of the particulars of the sale proclamation was issued on 7-2-1952. Owing to the death of His Majesty King George VI the Courts were closed on that date and the cases fixed for that date were taken up the next day. On 8-2-1952, the judgment-debtor filed objections mentioning a number of grounds against the execution of the decree. It was complained by her that inasmuch the decree-holder had not filed a written statement as was required by law for settlement of the particulars of the sale proclamation, she was unable to file a proper objection. It was ordered that the application he registered as a miscellaneous case under Section 47, Civil P. C., and be put up the next day. When the case was taken up, the objector was absent and the objections were dismissed for default. The main execution case was also taken up the same day and an order directing that a sale proclamation be prepared in accordance with the directions given was made. The sale proclamation was prepared accordingly and on 11-2-1952, it was ordered that a warrant be issued for holding an auction sale of the property on 26-3-1952,

(3.) It may be mentioned that according to the decree-holders, the property sought to be sold was worth Rs. 70,000. On 8-15-1952, the judgment-debtor made another application praying that the ex parte order passed against her on 9-2-1952, be set aside, the particulars of the sale proclamation be amended and the sale be stayed meanwhile. It was held by the learned Civil Judge that an application for setting aside an order like the one passed by him on 9-2-1952, did not lie and the application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with this order, the present appeal and the revision application have been filed. Mr. Varma, who appeared for the judgment-debtor, stated that he had filed his revision application by way of abundant caution.