PUNJAB MERCANTILE BANK LTD Vs. SARDAR KISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE arc two cases involving common questions and may be disposed of by one order (L. M. 42 and L. M. 85 of 1962 ). On 12th September, 1958, I allowed the claim of Punjab Mercantile Bank Ltd. , (in liquidation) against Kishan Singh for Rs. 1,52,423-2-0 and passed a preliminary mortgage decree in favour of the bank. This decree was made final on 6th November 1958. Execution was taken out by the official liquidator of the bank on nth December, 1959. In the meanwhile the respondent Kishan Singh preferred appeals from the preliminary and final decrees to the Letters Patent Bench which were unsuccessful. On 22nd September, 1961, the official liquidator preferred a petition to this Court under Order 21, Rule 66, praying that a house situated in village Gujjarpur, district Hoshiarpur, besides land measuring about 10 acres in that village, be sold in execution of the decree. On 2nd February, 1962, I passed the following order :

(2.) THE judgment-debtor through his counsel Mr. Daljit Singh submitted objections under Section 47/151 of the Civil Procedure Code, stating that the house was auctioned on 9th March, 1962, though the date of auction as announced by beat of drum was 16th March, 1962, and that as the prospective bidders were under an erroneous impression, they did not turn up on the date of auction. The house had fetched very low price and that if it was reauctioned it would fetch much more. It was, therefore, prayed that the house be reauctioned. This petition is L. M. 42 of 1962. On behalf of the auction-purchaser, the judgment-debtor's objections were opposed and the allegations made therein were dented. The following issues were framed: (1) Is the house liable to be re-auctioned for the reasons stated in the petition of the judgment-debtor ? (2) Is the present petition maintainable under Section 47? The auction-purchaser produced five witnesses, including himself. No witnesses were produced by the judgment-debtor.

(3.) THE other connected matter arises out of L. M. 85 of 1962 in Execution 34 of 1960, On behalf of one Dharam Singh an application was made under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code on 24th July, 1962, wherein it was stated that the sale of a large building was proclaimed for 16th May, 1962, and that the building was sold on 9th May, 1962. These dates are of course wrong. It was also said that the applicant had learnt that the auctioneer had fixed the value at Rs. 20,000/-, but the sale was concluded in favour of Shiv Singh for Rs. 5,000/ -. The statutory provisions, it was alleged, for the sale of immovable property, had been ignored. The applicant offered to purchase the property for Rs. 15,000/ -. An application was made by Dharam Singh on 10th September, 1962, stating that he had offered to pay Rs. 20,000/- for the house in dispute and that he had been bringing this sum in Court since the date when issues were framed in order to show his bona fides and that he had also brought Rs. 20,000/- on that date, in three bank drafts of the value of Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,100/- totalling Rs. 12,100/ -. He had also brought a sum of Rs. 7,900/- in cash He prayed that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- be got deposited in this Court. I passed an order permitting the amount to be deposited in this Court till orders are passed in the case and objections disposed of finally. The application of Dharam Singh was opposed by the auction-purchaser and the preliminary objection raised by him was that the applicant Dharam Singh had no locus stand and that it was a collusive application to support the objections of the judgment-debtor who was his near relation. The allegation that the date of auction announced by beat of drum was 16th March, 1962, and the sale was conducted on 9th March, 1962, was denied, and it was stated that the sale had in fact been conducted on 9th March, 1962. It was alleged that a number of persons were present at the spot but besides the representative of the official liquidator and the auction-purchaser himself no other person bid. It was also alleged that Dharam Singh was personally present at the auction and did not make any bid. I framed the following issue in L. M. 85 of 1962 :