SUHAS SIRSAT Vs. DEVENDRA T DHAVJEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) THE present petitioner is a Decree Holder who has obtained a money Decree against the respondent no. 2/judgment Debtor. The respondent no. 1 in this Writ Petition is also a Decree Holder who had obtained the Money decree against the respondent no. 2. Both the Decrees i. e. one obtained by the petitioner and the other by respondent no. 1 were put in execution. However, as certain objections were raised in the Execution Proceedings initiated by the petitioner, the progress therein was slower as compared to the progress in execution Proceedings initiated by respondent no. 1. Ultimately, the property of respondent no. 2 was put to auction and it is the case of respondent no. 1 that he, has, with the permission of the Court, purchased the said property. The sale effected in favour of respondent no. 1 was confirmed by the Trial Court.

(3.) THE present petitioner moved two applications before the Trial court, one for setting aside the sale and the other for rateable distribution of the sale proceeds. The rateable distribution was claimed under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The main ground on which the impugned Orders passed by the trial Court are challenged is that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing when the property of the respondent no. 2 was sold and the respondent no. 1 was permitted to purchase the same. The respondent no. 1 had claimed the set off in regard to the sale proceeds. The facts of the case in question are squarely covered by Section 73 of C. P. C. as more than one Decree Holders were possessed of Money Decrees against the respondent no. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 does not dispute that the case in hand is covered by section 73 and hence it necessarily follows that the petitioner had atleast a right of hearing in regard to the sale of assets of the respondent no. 2 and a further right of hearing in regard to the rateable distribution of sale proceeds. The impugned orders are thus passed in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and deserves to be quashed.