BISHNU CHARAN PANDA Vs. NARAYAN CHANDRA DHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENTTDEBTOR is the petitioner. The decree - holder, who is also the auction -purchaser, filed Execution Case No. 119 of 1987 for realisation of decretal dues of Rs. 927/ - and cost. On 3.8.1989, Sale Proclamation was issued for realisation of sum of Rs. 1333.00 and it was indicated that the auction of the property shall take place on 28.9.1989 at 12 P.M. in the Court of the Munsif, Jajpur. On 6.8.1989, the said sale proclamation was served on the judgment -debtor. Before the first date of auction, the judgment -debtor filed an application for adjournment of the sale. As a matter of fact, the judgment -debtor paid a total sum of Rs. 900/ - on three different dates, that is to say, on 23.9.1989, 12.12.1989 and 20.2.1990, and the date of auction was adjourned from day to day. Subsequently, on 16.3,1990, the judgment -debtor filed fresh application seeking for time to make payment and the matter was adjourned to 30.3.1990 for sale. On the said date, the judgment -debtor was absent, but the sale did not take place due to want of time of the Court and it was thereafter adjourned on several occasions. Ultimatley, the property was sold on 4.5.1990 and the decree -holder himself being the highest bidder, the sale was knocked down in his favour at the highest bid of Rs. 1271/ -. Subsequently, on the basis of the auction -purchase, the decretal amount was adjusted towards the bid amount.

(2.) BEFORE the sale was confirmed, an application wasifile.d by the judgment -debtor apparently under Order 21, Rule 89, CPC forgetting aside the sale. The judgment -debtor made a deposit of Rs, 1,401/ -. Such petition was rejected by order dated 5.7.1990 on.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though on the application of the present petitioner, the sale was adjourned till 30.3.1990, thereafter the sale did not take place on the date fixed, but took place on 4.5.1990 beyond thirty days. It is, therefore, contended that fresh proclamation as contemplated in Order 21, Rule 69, CPC should have been issued. The appellate Court had negatived such contention on the ground that the earlier adjournments were specifically made on the basis of application of the judgment -debtor and it must be taken that the judgment -debtor had waived the requirement of fresh proclamation being issued. On going thrugh the order sheet, 1 find that between 30.3.1990, the date specifically fixed for sale on the basis of the application of the judgment -debtor, and 4.5.1990, the date on which the auction took place, there had been several adjournments. Order 21, Rule 69, Sub -rule (2) prescribes as follows :