PANKAJ KUMAR PAKHIRA Vs. NANI BALA PAKHIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was obtained by the Petitioner against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, refusing his application for setting aside an execution sale. The sale was held on May 4, 1964. The application for setting aside the sale was filed on June 23, 1964.

(2.) At the impugned sale, the decree holder purchased the disputed property and she is the contesting opposite party in this Rule.

(3.) On the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge himself, the property was worth, at the lowest, Rs. 32,000. Its value in the sale proclamation was, however, given by the decree -holder as Rs. 4,500 and it was actually sold and purchased by her (the decree -holder herself) for Rs. 2,468 -39 P. The learned Subordinate Judge was further of the opinion that the above low valuation in the sale proclamation was, on the evidence, deliberately given on behalf of the decree -holder and he held, in the light of the decision of the Judicial Committee in Marudanyagam Pillai v/s. Manickavasakam Chettiar, (1945) L.R. 72 I.A. 104, that it was a case of deliberate and fraudulent under -valuation in the said proclamation of which advantage was taken by the decree -holder in purchasing the disputed property at the still lower valuation of Rs. 2,468 -39 P. As, however, in the view of the learned Subordinate Judge, the application for setting aside the sale had to be taken as one under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and as admittedly it was filed beyond thirty days from the date of sale, and as further the judgment -debtor (Petitioner before us) was, on the materials on record, clearly aware of the sale in time to apply for its setting aside within thirty days thereof, he recorded his inability to set aside the sale because of the bar of limitation.