NANDKISHOR DAULATRAO SHELKE Vs. BABAN VITTHAL MHASKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Civil Revision Application filed under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, the Revision applicant has challenged the order dated 14-3-1996 passed below Ex. 1. In M. J. C. No. 93 of 1994 and has further prayed for declaration that sale of property involved in the said M. J. C. be declared as void.

(2.) THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the present Revision applicant is the owner of field Gat No. 99, Area 3 Hectares 47 R, for Rs. 32. 38. The present respondent No. 2 Shakuntalabai had obtained a decree for recovery of Rs. 7,000/- against Revision applicant on 24-6-1991 and for execution thereof she filed Regular Darkhast/execution Case No. 101 of 1991. In that, she made prayer for attachment of property. The property came to be attached by warrant of attachment dated 20-12-1991 and the further process of sale of that field property was undertaken. The sale price of this property was fixed at Rs. 50,000/- on 4-1-1992. The sale was held by bailiff of civil Court on 30-12-1993 and bid of non-applicant No. 1 - Baban was accepted at Rs. 40,000/ - being the highest value. It is pointed out that auction purchaser- Baban deposited 1/4th amount of Rs. 10,000/-on 1-1-1994 and thereafter he deposited the balance 3/4th amount i. e. Rs. 30,000/- on 31-1-1994. On 19-3-1994, the auction purchaser filed M. J. C. No. 23 of 1994 for possession before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior division, Buldhana, and the said Court by its order 14-3-1996 issued the warrant of possession under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 95 of the Civil Procedure Code. On this M. J. C for possession, filed by the auction purchaser- Baban, the present revision applicant- Judgment debtor given the say that the application for possession was not tenable and further that he has filed Insolvency Petition No. 2 of 1993 and hence property cannot be proceeded against further. The Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Buldhana, after hearing the parties concerned, passed the impugned order on 14-3-1996 and allowed the auction purchaser to proceed to take possession and further ordered issuance of warrant for possession. It is this order which is challenged in present civil revision application by the revision applicant.

(3.) I have heard Advocate Shri Khapre, for the revision applicant and Advocate Shri Patil, for the non-applicants.