MADAN LAL Vs. AMAR PHUL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREM Parkash obtained a decree for the recovery of Rs. 5,000 against Amar Phul. In execution thereof, 15 Kanals 3 Marias of land was sold by Court auction on 13th November, 1982 for Rs. 6,800 in favour of Madan Lal who gave the highest bid. The judgment -debtor filed objections under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure which were dismissed by the executing Court. The executing Court held that the objection regarding proclamation of sale had to be raised before auction was held and objections in that behalf could not be raised after the sale in view of proviso to Rule 90 Order 21 of the Code, as added by Rules and Orders of this Court which, is to the following effect:

(2.) THE auction -purchaser has come to this Court in this revision.

(3.) BEFORE amendment of Rule 90 of Order 21 made in the year 1976, after sale of property in execution, the aggrieved person was entitled to file objections, which could include objections in regard to the publication of the proclamation provided substantial injury was shown. As rightly noticed by R.N. Mittal, J. in Mai Singh's case (supra) a further proviso was added by Punjab amendment on 7th April, 1932, which continued even till after the amendment Act No. 104 of 1976, which has been quoted above, so as to narrow down the scope of objections to be Pled after the sale is conducted and thereby to avoid delay in execution. As a result of the Punjab amendment, no objection can be entertained against the sale, which the Applicant could have put forward before the sale was conducted. Therefore, on the basis of the Punjab proviso, objection against the proclamation of sale had to be raised before the auction -sale was conducted.