SADHU SINGH Vs. PYARELAL SINGH PUNJABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision by the judgment -debtor arises from an order passed by the learned Munsif, Titilagarh, rejecting his application filed under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale.

(2.) THE opposite party levied execution of a decree for realisation of a sum of Rs. 2602/ -. On 30 -7 -1981 warrant of attachment was issued. On 30 -4 -1982, the Petitioner filed objecting stating that the land was Ac.0.68 in extent in mouza Kantabanjhi and there was a house on it. Accordingly the property had been undervalued, by omitting to mention the existence of a house, on the land, the decree -holder has sought to play fraud on the Court. That objection was dismissed for default on 2 -7 -1982. On 7 -9..1982, the decree -holder filed an affidavit stating that the valuation of the property would be Rs. 2602/ -. The valuation was, however, resettled at Rs. 3000/ - and proclamation was issued for I sale. On 16 -12 -1982 to which the matter was posted for sale, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the valuation and steps taken for the sale omitting the existence of the house. The sale was adjourned to 17 -12 -1982 when the decree -holder himself purchased the property. The Petitioner filed the application for setting aside the attachment and the sale on the ground that having regard to the objection filed on 26 -11 -1982 no sale could have taken place on 17 -12 -1982 without disposal of the petition and secondly, having regard to the materials before the Court, valuation stated in the proclamation was grossly low and fraud was prayed, on the Court by withholding the fact of existence of a house on the land from its notice. Evidence was led on behalf of the Petitioner in proof of the fact that there was a double storeyed building on the land having four rooms and the value of the property would be valued at Rs. 50,000/ -. Learned Munsif rejected the application holding that earlier objection of the Petitioner had been dismissed for default having regard to the objection taken; proclamation was issued taking into account the existence of a building.

(3.) EACH of the contentions has force though the last contention was not raised before the executing Court.