DARSHAN SINGH Vs. PUNJAB & SINDH BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 12.3.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Muktsar upholding the order dated 9.1.1997 delivered by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malout. The Additional Civil Judge vide his order dated 9.1.1997 has dismissed the objection petition of the judgment debtor -petitioner (for brevity, JD -petitioner) filed under order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code).

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a civil suit No.84 of 19.10.1994/13.9.1993 for recovery of Rs.4,58,853.32 paise plus interest was filed which was decreed on 6.6.1995. On 6.6.1995, the suit was decreed for recovery of Rs.4,12,4557 - with cost and interest at the rate of Rs. 12.5% per annum. The decree was against the principal judgment debtor and the guarantor judgment debtor -petitioner, The decree holder -respondent filed an application for execution of decree against the JD -petitioner and the executing Court on 14.11.1995 has auctioned the agricultural land measuring 27 kanals, 19 marlas owned by Nand Singh, the, predecessor -in -interest of the present judgment debtor -petitioner for an amount of Rs.4,70,000/ -. Against the auction held in execution of the decree, the judgment debtor -petitioner filed objection under order XXI Rule 90 claiming that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 67 of the Code were not complied with and no munadi was conducted on the spot before the alleged auction. It was further alleged that no auction was held by Tehsildar, Malout on 14.11.1995 as he did not visit the village Mahni Khera on that day because he remained busy with the New Deputy Commissioner of the district. It is claimed that the report has been prepared by the Tehsildar in his office in connivance with the decree holder -respondents on a subsequent date which was anti - dated.

(3.) The objection petition was opposed by the decree holder -respondents as well as by Sajjan Singh auction purchaser -respondent No.2. The allegation of the JD -petitioner that no proclamation was conducted nor any auction was held on the spot has been controverted. The executing Court framed an issue, allowed the parties to lead evidence and thereafter hearing the arguments dismissed the objections filed under order XXI Rule 90 of the Code. The order passed by the Additional Civil Judge was taken in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Muktsar. The appeal was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 12.3.2001 affirming the view taken by the executing Court.