CHUNNI LAL Vs. SANTOO LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this F. A. F. O. the decree-holder appellant challenged the decision of the executing Court who has set aside the execution sale held on 21-5-78 by allowing the objection of the J. D. under O. 21, R. 90, C. P. C.

(2.) IN spite of service nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. From the facts of the case it appears that in pursuance of the decree in favour of the appellant certain properties of the respondent were attached. When the proceedings for execution took place only one house was put up for public auction on 21-5-78. Since no objection was filed within time the auction sale was confirmed on 2-8-78. The respondent filed objection on 2-9-78. These objections were allowed on 21-5-79 by the impugned order by which the Court held that the execution sale had taken place for a grossly inadequate sum and the property worth Rs. 50,000/was purchased by the decree-holder for Rs. 11,800/- only. This is the sole ground on which the objections have been allowed.

(3.) INCIDENTALLY a question may arise as to what is the position of this amendment after coming into force of the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 1976 (Act No. 104 of 1976 ). According to the Amending Act local amendments which were not consistent with the provisions of the Amended Act, are to be superseded by the provisions of the amending Act.