RANDHIR SINGH Vs. NEW BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) New Bank of India, Dasuya Branch obtained decree in Civil Suit No. 222 of 19-7-1989 for the recovery of Rs. 1,39,096.00 against Randhir Singh and others on 28-7-90. Decretal amount was recoverable by the sale of the mortgaged land measuring 76 kanal, 17 marla and by the sale of tractor hypothecated with the Bank. Decree-holder Bank, filed execution for the recovery of the decretal amount i.e. Rs. 1,39,090.00 (sic) + Rs. 21,776.00 as interest up to 17-10-90 plus costs and legal fee. In execution of the decree, land measuring 44 kanal was auctioned for a sum of Rs. 1,42,500.00 i.e. @ Rs. 3200.00 per kanal. Land was purchased by Darshan Singh and Jit Singh sons of Rattan Singh at an auction sale. Sale certificate was issued to them in respect of land measuring 44 kanal, 17 marla on 6-3-95 by Subordinate Judge, First Class, Dasuya.

(2.) Gurnam Singh and others filed objections to the execution sale under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC. It was alleged in the objections that one of the objectors named Rajwant Kaur was not party to the suit but her share was also sold in the auction. Value of the property involved in this execution was not less than Rs. 1.50 lacs per acre. Land was sold at a very low price which can be said to be highly inadequate and unfair. Before issuing warrant of sale, the Court should have assessed how much land would be sufficient enough to satisfy the decree which was not done by the Court in this case. Suit property was attached illegally and unlawfully in violation of the established provisions of law. Said auction/sale dated 13-3-92 came to the notice of the JD objectors on 9-5-92 when the Court received the report of the alleged illegal auction/sale. It was further alleged that as per the report, sale was effected by Tehsildar, Dasuya who was not competent to effect sale. No munadi or publication was affected in the village and report to this effect is false and got made by the concerned person in connivance with the alleged Chowkidar and attesting witness at the instance and instigation of the official of the DH-Bank and the person who purchased the suit property. It was kept a guarded secret as to when the sale would take place. There should have been munadi or publication in the village as to the date when sale was to take place so that maximum purchasers could be attracted who could participate in the auction proceedings. The person who conducted the sale on 13-3-92 committed material irregularities, illegality and fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. Sale was to be effected on 4-3-92 but sale was effected on 13-3-92. No munadi or publication was made as to the changed date when sale was to take place. Tehsildar, Dasuya was not at all competent to effect the sale on any other date or time except 4-3-92. It is settled law that when sale is held on a day different from that on which it was notified to be held earlier and as to the date when sale was held JD could have had no notice, such type of sale is illegal. Similarly, where the Court ordered the sale to be held at a particular place but it was notified to be held and it was actually held at a different place, the sale would be illegal. In fact, no sale was done on 13-3-92 as mentioned in the report and the officer conducting the sale in connivance with purchaser, official of the DH Bank and some persons inimical to the JDs had prepared fake and false record. It was also alleged that they filed objections under Order 21, Rules 58 and 59, CPC against attachment. Without deciding those objections, sale was held. Sale could not be held without deciding those objections.

(3.) Auction purchasers put in reply contesting these objections. It was urged that they have not been impleaded as party to the objections. Objections are not within time. No substantial loss was suffered by the judgment-debtor. Objectors had knowledge of the sale. Sale was conducted legally and by duly authorised person and the land sold fetched market price. Auction sale took place after all the formalities prescribed by law had been complied with. It was denied that the sale was the result of fraud.