KRUSHNA MOHAN MOHANTY Vs. GOVINDA CHANDRA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition in revision is against the appellate Order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Puri, setting aside the order of the executing court and dismissing the petitioner's petition under O. 21, R. 90, C.P.C. The petitioner is the judgment-debtor and the opposite party is the decree-holder-auction-purchaser. A two storeyed building of the petitioner in the town of Puri had been attached in the execution proceeding and one of the dates for sale had been fixed against 20-6-56. On that day certain part payment was made by the petitioner, and the petitioner prayed for time, waiving issue of fresh sale proclamation. The learned Munsif fixed 20-7-56 for payment of the balance and ordered that in default of such payment the said sale would take place at 12 noon of that date. On 20-7-56, the petitioner filed a petition for time and again waived issue of fresh sale proclamation, and the court allowed time till 20-8-56 for full payment of the balance. There was no express order of the court that failing payment sale would take place that day. Again, on 20-8-56, the petitioner made a part payment and filed a petition for time waiving issue of fresh sale proclamation and the court granted him time as a last chance till 21-9-56, but the court did not expressly order adjournment of sale to that date. On 21-9-56, another petition for time was filed on behalf of the petitioner waiving issue of fresh sale proclamation. THIS petition was rejected and the Court fixed the next day for sale; but no hour was fixed by the court for holding the sale. The sale was conducted the next day. The decree-holder was the only bidder in the auction sale and the sale was knocked down in his favour for Rs, 5000/-.

(2.) THE petitioner's case in his petition under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. was that the building sold for Rs. 5000/- was worth Rs. 50,000.00; and that there was material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale inasmuch as there was no express order of the court on 20/7/1956 and 20/8/1956, that sales would be conducted on the adjourned dates in default of payment and as such a fresh sale proclamation was necessary; and that no time was fixed in the order dated 21/9/1956 as to when the sale was to take place the next day, as a result of which no other bidder participated in the auction.