PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. RAJESH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER confirmation of sale in execution in a money decree, objections were filed by the Punjab National Bank, the present petitioner for setting aside the sale on the ground of fraud played by the Decree-Holder and the Judgment Debtor. These objections were disposed of on receiving reply from Decree Holder, but without trial vide order dated October 7, 1989 by the Senior Sub-Judge, Chandigarh, inter alia holding that after confirmation of the sale objections were not maintainable to the sale. An appeal was preferred against the said order which was dismissed by the District Judge, Chandigarh holding that the same was not maintainable, but Civil Revision was maintainable against the order of the Senior sub-Judge. Hence this Revision Petition by the objector-the Punjab National Bank.

(2.) THE Judgment-Debtor had taken substantial amount of loan from the Punjab National Bank and in the building in dispute, the bank is the tenant. The amount due to the bank is stated to be to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs.

(3.) RAJESH Kumar obtained a decree to the tune of Rs. 7,80,000/- with Interest against the judgment Debtor M/s. Progressive Poly Plast Company, Chandigarh on July 29,1988. In execution of the decree, the property of the Judgment Debtor was attached which is Shop-cum-Office at Manimajra. It was purchased by the Decree Holder after obtaining permission from the Court. The sale was confirmed on August 3,1989. Punjab National Bank filed the objections on August 19,1989 purporting to be under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). The allegation of fraud was pleaded that the Decree Holder and the Judgment Debtor colluded with. each other, committed fraud and misstated facts with a view to get the property transferred in the names of other members of the family. The objector was not a party to these proceedings and came to know when Decree Holder issued a notice to the bank dated August 4, 1989 alongwith copy of the order of the Senior Sub-Judge dated August 3, 1989. These objections were contested and the orders were passed by the Courts below.