SEEMA INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor M/s Seema Industries and the Objector Sishir Kumar Shrivastava for declaring that the auction-purchaser has not acquired any right, title or interest in the suit property. The Trial Court by impugned order dated 22.7.1991 has rejected an application moved by appellant No. 2 Sishir Kumar purported to be under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that the appellant No. 2 Sishir Kumar, who is neither a judgment-debtor nor an auction-purchaser nor a decree-holder or other person whose right is affected by the auction sale, has no right, title or interest in the suit property of his own. As a result of the dismissal of the application moved by the appellant No. 2 under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code, his claim for right, title and interest in the suit property stands finally adjudicated.

(2.) It has already been decided on 5.11.1990 in M.J.C. No. 6/90 that the appellant No. 2 had no right, title or interest in the suit property as a result of the dismissal of his application under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code claiming interest in the property auctioned, although the application was dismissed on the ground of non-appearance. Once it has been decided that the appellant No. 2 had no right, title or interest in the suit property which was auctioned, he does not fall within the purview of a person whose interests are affected by the sale. Consequently thereof, the appellant No. 2 has no right to challenge the auction sale exercising powers under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code. It would be pertinent to note that the judgment-debtor/appellant No. 1 had not filed any objection either under Order 21, Rule 58 or under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code challenging the attachment of the suit house or the auction sale of the house. The appellant No. 2 having no right to challenge the sale by auction of the suit property, the trial Court has rightly rejected his application. I do not find any illegality committed by the trial Court in rejecting the application of appellant No. 2.

(3.) Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.