KRISHNA KRUPAL R Vs. CH VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an auction-purchaser in the sale proceedings that were held pursuant to the orders passed on 26-8-1994 in E.P.59 of 1986, arising out of judgment and decree in O.S. No.313 of 1978. Mr. Venkateswara Rao (respondent No.1 herein) is the judgment-debtor and Punjab National Bank (respondent No.2 herein) is the decree-holder. After obtaining the decree, the decree-holder for its realisation brought the properties of judgment-debtor for sale including the one purchased by the petitioner hereiin. The date of auction sale was 23-4-1993. The bid amount was Rs.25,500-00..As per the sale notice, the petitioner deposited 1/4 th of the bid amount on the next day. On 26-8-1994 the judgment-debtor filed a petition seeking permission to deposit the decretal amount of Rs.63,000-00 which was allowed by the executing Court, treating the said application as one filed under Order XXI Rule 89 C.P.C. The said application was in fact opposed by the petitioner herein on two grounds, namely, when sale was held on 23-4-1993 it is not proper to entertain such application under Sec. 151 CPC, and since he being the auction purchaser, he shall be given an opportunity to file his objections. Secondly the application seeking permission to deposit the amount shall not be granted as the said application was filed beyond two months; thus barred by limitation. But the executing Court after hearing, allowed the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C.

(2.) Sri Vinay Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the entire proceedings of the executing Court are quite arbitrary and illegal. When petitioner participated in the sale proceedings and purchased one of the properties brought for sale by paying the entire decretal amount, executing Court should have heard the matter by permitting the petitioner herein to file objections and also should have considered his submission that the petition filed was barred by limitation particularly in view of Section 127 of the Limitation Act. He also submitted that when the sale was conducted pursuant to the Court order and if a third person participates and gives a highest bid, cancelling the same at a later stage without assigning the reasons will amount to mockery of the proceedings. Thus arguing submitted that the petition be dismissed.

(3.) Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.l, argued that the approach of the executing Court is quite correct and reasonable. According to him mere purchase will not confer any right on the purchaser unless the same is confirmed. In addition to this by Court's order dated 15-4-1993 confirmation of sale was stayed. The petitioner knowing fully well about the said order, yet participated in the auction sale and purchased the property and therefore he cannot now contend that the executing Court was not correct in not confirming the sale or at least should have permitted him to file objections and to be heard in the matter. Thus arguing submitted that the petition be dismissed.