GANGAVISHAN HEERALAL Vs. TURAMSINGH BHARATSINGH THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal arising out of the order dated 30 -1 -1979, passed in Execution Case No. 7 of 1976 by the District Judge, Morena. In Civil Case No. 7 of 1976, a decree was passed on 14 -7 -1976 in favour of one Turamsingh son of Bharatsingh against firm Gangavishan Heeralal, a registered partnership, Dattapura, Morena and Chhotelal son of Gangavishan Vaishya, Dattapura, Morena. There was no appeal against the decree and when the decree was put in execution on 2 -8 -1976, the amount to be paid by the judgment -debtor was Rs. 3,529.75. In the execution of the decree, a house belonging to the judgment -debtor was attached and subsequently, it was put to auction. On different dates the auction took place. From the file, it seems that the property was put to auction more than one time. First, it was put to auction on 22nd, 23rd and 24th August, 1976. Then it was again put to auction on 23 -2 -1978 and onwards. Then it was again put to auction in the month of May 1978, and in the end, on 11 -9 -1978, there was a bid for Rs. 51,100 by respondent No. 2 and the Court accepted the bid on 28 -9 -1978. After acceptance of the bid, the appellant submitted an application under Order 21, Rule 82, Civil Procedure Code, and raised certain objection. The trial Court rejected the permission asked for a private sale and it also rejected the application filed by the judgment -debtor mentioning it to be under Order 21, Rule 82, Civil Procedure Code. Against that the present appeal is directed.

(2.) CERTAIN facts which are necessary for the decision of the case are that the amount for which the execution was started is a paltry sum of Rs. 3,529.75. It is alleged by the judgment -debtor that the value of the house is more than a lakh of rupees. In the first execution proceedings the bid was for Rs. 62,250 and 1/4th amount was deposited by Munnalal who was the bidder, but the Court did not accept the bid and adjourned it. The offset value mentioned by the Court of the house is Rs. 35,000.

(3.) HE has raised certain objections that the notice which was issued under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil Procedure Code the information in it is not given as required under that Rule. It was also mentioned that while publishing the auction, it was not with a beat of drum. Therefore, the auction of the house is illegal. To this the reply of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the auction -purchaser is that under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code no application to set aside a sale under this Rule shall be entertained on an objection which could have been raised by the appellant on the date on which the proclamation of the sale was drawn up. Therefore, I will have to accept his objection and the objections which the learned counsel submitted regarding the proclamation of sale and its publication cannot be entertained.