GANGA SARAN D Vs. IVTH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ganga Saran original petitioner (since deceased and survived by legal representatives) was tenant of a property on behalf of respondent No. 3 Smt. Anna Puma. Respondent No. 3 filed suit against the petitioner for ejectment from the tenanted premises and for recovery of arrears of rent etc. The suit was decreed. Decree for recovery of money was put in execution through Execution Case No. 88 of 1979. In the said execution proceedings property in dispute belonging to the petitioner was sold through Court auction on 27.1.1984. The property was purchased in Court auction by Naveen Kumar respondent No. 4, who was already the tenant of the said property on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner filed an application on 25.2.1984 i.e., within 30 days from the date of sale for setting aside the sale. Along with the application necessary amount as required under Order XXI Rule 89, C.P.C. including 5% of the sale price and decreetal amount was deposited. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 25 of 1984. In the application it was mentioned that the decreetal amount mentioned in the proclamation of sale under Order XXI Rule 66, C.P.C. was not correct, as it did not adjust the total amount deposited during the pendency of the suit. It was also stated that the proclamation of sale was issued by the Court on 7.1.1984 and it was not properly advertised. From the order sheet it is clear that the application was registered as application under Order XXI Rule 89, C.P.C.

(3.) The amount deposited by the petitioner along with his application did not include poundage fee as required by Rules 364 and 371 of General Rule Civil a compendium of Rules framed by this High Court for the subordinate courts under Section 122, C.P.C. The poundage fee was deposited on 21.4.1984. Thereafter on 4.5.1984, petitioner filed an application for withdrawing/deleting paragraphs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of his application. In the said paragraphs correctness of the contents of proclamation of sale was challenged and manner of publication of sale was also questioned.