LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-2

MAHASHA DEV RAJ Vs. NIRMAL KUMARI AND ORS.

Decided On February 10, 2015
Mahasha Dev Raj Appellant
V/S
Nirmal Kumari And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Muktsar Sahib and order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, disposing of an application filed by the judgment -debtor to the effect that the decree under order has been fully satisfied.

(2.) IN brief, Raj Kumari Verma filed the Civil Suit No.RT -231 dated 04.10.2007 against Professor Krishan Kumar (deceased) for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,30,000/ - with costs and interest @ 12% per annum before filing of suit and 6% per annum after filing the suit. The suit was decreed on 19.12.2007. The decree -holder filed an application for execution on 19.04.2008 for recovery of Rs. 4,12,691/ - including principal sum, interest and costs.

(3.) ON 12.09.2009, the judgment -debtor moved an application under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (here -in -after referred to as the "CPC") to pay the decretal amount and 5% of the purchase money to be paid to the auction purchaser and prayed that the sale in favour of the appellant may be set aside. He deposited a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/ - in the Court which was accepted by Shri I.M.L. Verma, Advocate, on behalf of the decree -holder, in complete satisfaction of his claim in the decree under execution. The auction purchaser -appellant was not present on that day to whom notice was issued for 19.09.2009. The notice was not received back duly served and fresh notice was ordered to be issued to him for 10.10.2009 and then for 07.11.2009. In the meantime, on 13.10.2009, the judgment debtor moved another application depositing 5% amount of the purchase money to be paid to the auction purchaser and also moved an application for condonation of delay. He was allowed to deposit the purchase money subject to the decision of the application for setting aside the sale in favour of the auction purchaser. The auction purchaser joined the proceedings on 07.11.2009 and filed reply on 08.12.2009 and 07.01.2010. The judgment debtor in his application dated 12.09.2009 has alleged that he was not served properly before drawing proclamation of sale and had also filed an appeal against the decree under execution. He had already paid decretal amount to the decree -holder in complete satisfaction of the decree and was also ready to pay 5% of the purchase money and any other amount, as directed by the Court to the auction purchaser.