CHANDRA PAL Vs. BHARAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A. N. Bhargava and Sri Deoraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No one has appeared for the respondents.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 24th April, 1985 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Bijnor by which Appeals No. 22 of 1983 and 152 of 1984 filed by Bharat Singh, respondent No. 1, have been allowed.

(3.) Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are; in pursuance of a money decree properties of judgment debtor were sold on 20th August, 1982 in which the petitioner was the auction purchaser. An application was filed by respondent No. 1, judgment debtor, against the action under Order XXI, Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure. In the application it was stated that auction proceedings are illegal and fabricated and the provisions of Order XXI Rule 68 of Code of Civil Procedure have not been followed. It was stated that auction purchaser is son in-law of decree holder and no permission of the Court was taken for bid. It was further stated that value of the property is Rs. 2.5 lacs, which has been auctioned for less amount. The decree holder objected to the application and submitted that proclamation was issued for the auction fixed on 20th August, 1982 and provisions of Order XXI Rule 68 of Code of Civil Procedure were followed. The decree holder also raised objection that application is barred by time. The trial Court after hearing the parties took the view that according to Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the application for setting aside the sale was to be made within 60 days whereas the application was filed on 1-12- 1982. The trial Court held that application is barred by time. The trial Court further held that judgment debtor was aware of the proceedings since he made applications on 21st August, 1982 and 25th September, 1982. The statement of Amin and auction purchaser were also recorded by the Court. The auction was also approved on 1st December, 1982. The trial Court held that auction was held according to procedure prescribed. The application was held to be barred by time and was consequently rejected. Two appeals were filed by the judgment debtor being Appeal No. 22 of 1983 against the order dated 1st December, 1982 and Appeal No. 152 of 1984 against the order dated 11th January, 1983 passed by trial Court rejecting the application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate Court allowed the appeals and held that application was not barred by time. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24th April, 1985 passed by the appellate Court.