SHER SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.3.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam dismissing the objections of the petitioner to the sale conducted on 28.1.2002.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that judgment and decree dated 20.2.2001 was passed in Civil Suit No. 83 dated 16.4.2002 decreeing the suit for a total sum of Rs. 3,98,142/-. The decree holder-respondent filed an application seeking execution of the decree. It is during the execution proceedings that attachment orders were issued and the petitioner filed objections under Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') which were dismissed. Thereafter the attached property was put to auction. Warrants directing sale of the property were received back unexecuted with the report that no one was ready to bid for the property. Thereafter, the bank filed an application under Order XXI Rule 12 of the Code seeking permission of the Court to itself bid at the auction. However, for the reasons best known to the decree holder, the application was withdrawn and the warrants directing sale of the property were issued again. Sale was conducted on 28.1.2002 to which the JD-petitioner filed objection. The decree holder, however, pleaded for confirming the sale of the land. As per auction proceedings, the attached land of the JD-petitioner measuring 12 kanals 19 marlas were sold for Rs. 3,20,000/- and the auction purchaser deposited on the spot a sum of Rs. 80,000/- i.e. 1/4th of the total amount. The balance 3/4th of the amount was deposited in the Court on 31.2.2002 i.e. within the prescribed period of 15 days as provided by Order XXI Rule 85 of the Code. The executing Court while dismissing the objection of the JD-petitioner held as under :

(3.) RELYING on copy of jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 appended as Annexure P-1, the learned counsel has pointed out that a perusal thereof reveals that there is a gair mumkin house and a gair mumkin motor in the area of khasra No. 35(0-15) and khasra No. 26(0-8) and the same cannot be made subject matter of sale or attachment. He has further contended that the executing Court in it impugned order has failed to appreciate this entry of jamabandi and has illegally dismissed the objection of the JD-petitioner.