BIBHUTI BHUSAN DEY Vs. BANKIM CHANDRA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was obtained by the judgment-debtor petitioner against an appellate order refusing to set aside an auction sale under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, --the judgment being one of affirmance.

(2.) The petitioner is one of the judgment-debtors and it is alleged in his petition under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the disputed property was not properly described in the sale proclamation which was fraudulently suppressed and, on account of such suppression, the property has been sold at an inadequately low price resulting in substantial injuries to the petitioner. The opposite party No. 1 is the auction-purchaser and the opposite party No. 2 is the decree-holder. Both of them opposed this application.

(3.) The executing court dismissed the application on the view that none of the grounds taken were proved. On a finding that at the time of the issue of the sale proclamation both parties gave their own valuation as to the property sold and according to the proviso to cl. (e), sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure the sale proclamation was published with both the valuations namely, Rs. 5000/- by the decree-holder and Rs. 25000/- by the judgment-debtor and, accordingly, the sale proclamation was duly served and not suppressed. It was further found that the property was sufficiently described with all the necessary details and the omission to mention in the sale proclamation the number of rooms was not at all material nor it could be held that the said defect misled the prospective buyers in any way and the property was not sold at an inadequately low price.