KAMALA KANTA MOHAPATRA Vs. DEBARCHAN SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision application challenge is to the order of rejection of a petition under O. 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'Code'), filed by the judgment-debtors, in an execution proceeding. Scope and ambit of several provisions of Order 21, CPC are involved in this petition.

(2.) Factual position delineated in outline is as follows. A money decree was obtained by the opposite party No. 1 (described hereafter as 'the decree-holder') against the petitioners (described hereafter as 'the judgment-debtors') and the decree was put to execution by the former against the present petitioners, and opposite party No. 2 for realisation of a sum of Rs. 1886.17. The execution case was numbered as Execution Case No. 57 of 1977, and Ac. 6.80 decimals of land was put to auction on 17-8-1985, and sold for Rs. 6,700/-. The judgment-debtors filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC to set aside the auction sale on the grounds of irregularities in publishing and conducting the sale, inter alia, on the premises that no notice of attachment was served on the petitioners; due proclamation was not there; the proclamation did not bear correct names of the judgment-debtors; the sale proclamation was not properly served and the property which was valued at about Rs. 1 lakh was purchased for a meagre sum of Rs. 6,700/- by the decree-holder himself for realisation of Rs. 1886.17. The application which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 55 of 1985 was dismissed by the learned Munsif, Bargarh. The dismissal was affirmed in an appeal filed by the judgment-debtors-petitioners which was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 1986 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bargarh.

(3.) The grounds indicated for setting aside of sale were reiterated at the time of hearing of the revision application. According to the learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, there was no infirmity in the conduct of sale; the petition under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC was not maintainable because the deposit mandated by the Orissa Amendment to Order 21, Rule 90 was not made within the stipulated time; there was no infirmity in the attachment or proclamation and merely because valuation of the property may be high that cannot be a ground for attaching any invalidity to the sale. On consideration of the rival submissions, the following points emerge for consideration.