LAKHWINDER SINGH Vs. CHETAN DASS AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment Debtor (JD)-Lakhwinder Singh has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC), assailing judgment dated 21.11.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Fatehabad.

(2.) Suit filed by respondent No.2 Bhagwan Dass Goel-Decree Holder (DH) against petitioner was decreed for recovery of Rs. 5,59,545/- with interest @ 6 % per annum vide ex parte judgment and decree dated 02.04.2007. DH filed petition for execution of the said decree on 02.02.2008. Land of JD petitioner measuring 34 kanals 2 marlas was attached in the execution proceedings. DH filed application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC for sale of the attached land. The attached land was put to auction on 20.11.2010. Chetan Dass-respondent No.1 being highest bidder was auction purchaser of the attached land for Rs. 26,25,000/-. Respondent No.1 deposited the auction money. DH withdrew the decreetal amount of Rs. 7,41,846/- out of it. Respondent No.1 also moved application on 02.02.2011 for confirmation of sale, issuance of sale certificate and delivery of possession of the land sold. It was thereafter that JD-petitioner filed application (dated 31.03.2012 as stated by counsel for the petitioner) for setting aside the auction sale held on 20.11.2010. It was pleaded that the entire suit land should not have been sold and only 2 kanals could have satisfied the decree, market rate being not less than Rs. 32,00,000/- per acre (8 kanals). The said application was opposed by auction purchaser. Learned Executing court vide order dated 14.08.2012 partly allowed the application of respondent No.1 and set aside the sale of attached land except to the extent of the land sufficient for satisfying the decretal amount including interest. JD, auction purchaser and DH were directed to furnish details of the decretal amount and the area of land sufficient to satisfy the decretal amount. However, appeal preferred against the said order filed by the auction purchaser has been allowed by learned District Judge vide judgment dated 21.11.2012. Feeling aggrieved, JD has filed the instant revision petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.