SURAJ SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned three petitions involved a common question, hence the same are heard together and being decided by this common order.

(2.) The relevant facts of the three revision applications are in a very narrow compass. The Union Bank of India, Branch Kareli, Tahsil Kareli, Distt. Narshinghpur instituted three separate Civil Suits against the applicant for recovery of different amounts. All the three Civil Suits were decreed in favour of the Bank- Decrees were put into execution by the decree holder for recovery of the decretal amount. They were registered as Execution Case Nos. 4-B/98, 5-B/98 and 1 l-B/99 in the Court of 1st A. D. J., Narshinghpur. The three execution cases were consolidated by the executing Court vide its order dated 6-2-2004. The applicant is a common judgment debtor in all the three execution cases. The land comprised in Survey No. 30/2, 31/2 and 32 in all in area 8.497 hectares situated at Gram Baskheda, Tahsil Kareli, Distt. Narsinghpur was mortgaged by the applicant with the decree holder Bank which was attached prior to auction. The land was put to public auction by the executing Court on 20th April, 2004. The executing Court declined to accepts final bid at Rs. 18,01,000/- on account of being low and the land was put to re-auction. On 25-10-2004 the mortgaged land was finally re-auctioned and the final bid of Rs. 23,51,000.00 was accepted by the executing Court. The auction purchaser deposited Rs. 7,00,000/- in pursuance of his bid and finally deposited the balance amount of Rs. 16,51,000.00 on 5/11/2004.

(3.) The applicant/judgment debtor on 3-11-2004 submitted an objection under O. 21, R. 64 of Civil Procedure Code that a proportionate land ought to have been put to auction as the total decretal amount was merely to the tune of Rs. 11,00,000/- and the property worth Rs. 23,51,000/- could not have been sold in auction in contravention of O. 21, R. 64, C. P. C. The applicant prayed for cancellation of the auction held on 25-10-2004 with a further prayer for sale by auction of a proportionate land. The application was opposed by the decree holder and has been rejected by the executing Court vide the impugned orders passed in an identical manner in all the three execution cases.