RAI DEBI PRASAD Vs. DEO PARASNATH JI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a further appeal by the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings.

(2.) THE material facts are very clearly and succinctly stated by the learned District Judge. It appears that the auction sale was stayed or adjourned several times at the request of the judgment-debtor on his giving repeated undertakings not to raise any objections, including the objection under Order 21, rule 66 of the Civil Procedure Code as well as the one under section 32 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act. THEse undertakings were given by the judgment-debtor with a view to secure the postponement of the auction sale on one pretext or another.

(3.) SHRI S. L. Jain, learned counsel for the judgment-debtor, however contends that the previous undertakings were wiped out, when the executing Court felt the necessity of drawing up a fresh proclamation, and the rights of the judgment-debtor could not be affected unless the requirements of Order 21, rule 66 (2) of the Code were complied with afresh and for this, he relies upon the dictum of Bhutt J. (as he then was) in Purshottam Lal v. Gokul Prasad (Misc. (First) Appeal No. 38 of 1953 dated the 13th August 1953), namely-