DARBARA SINGH Vs. GRAM SABHA OF VILLAGE BHOKHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vaid Sadhu Ram secured a decree for Rs. 570/- with costs on January 14, 1976, against Gram Sabha Bhokhra Tehsil and District Bhatinda (respondent) represented by Harchand Singh the then Sarpanch.l The decree- holder started execution proceedings in March, 1976, for the realisation of the decretal amount and at his instance two Killas of land of the judgment- debtor bearing Khasra Nos. 32/9(8-0) and 18(8-0) in Khewat No. 277 was attached. The attached land was auctioned on January 30, 1979, and the highest bid offered was that of the petitioner for Rs. 9000/-. The petitioner deposited 25 per cent of the bid at the time of auction. On February 6, 1979, the decree-holder appeared in the executing Court and made the following statement :-

(2.) On February 6, 1979, the petitioner filed an application before the executing Court praying that he may be allowed to deposit the remaining 3/4th bid money and the sale be confirmed. The executing court called for the office report for February 12, 1979. In the report submitted on February 13, 1979, the fact that the attachment of the land had already been released on February 6, 1979, was omitted. The petitioner was consequently allowed to deposit 3/4th of the bid money. The petitioner deposited 3/4th bid money and thereafter applied to the executing Court for confirmation of the sale under Order 21, rule 92, C.P.C. Upon notice, objections on behalf of the judgment- debtor were filed on March 9, 1979, inter alia alleging that the attachment of the land had already been released and its value was more than Rs. 50,000/-. the judgment-debtor also filed another application on March 9, 1979, under Order 21, rule 89, C.P.C. stating that the auction of the land was illegal for the reasons stated therein. The executing Court vide order dated May 5, 1979, dismissing the objections filed by the judgment-debtor and confirmed the sale of the land in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) The judgment-debtor assailed the order of the executing court dated May 5, 1979, in appeal which was allowed by District Judge, Bhatinda, vide order dated June 13, 1980. The learned District Judge held that in the office report dated February 13, 1979, the fact that the attached land stood already released on February 6, 1979, was intentionally suppressed and further the sale could not be confirmed by the executing court after the land had been released from attachment. It was also held that the objections filed by the judgment-debtor under Order 21, rule 89, C.P.C. against the auction had been wrongly dismissed and that the auction was illegal on account of having been conducted by Kanungo whereas the executing Court had directed the S.D.O. (Civil) to do so. The petitioner has assailed the order of the District Judge, Bhatinda, dated June 13, 1980, in the present revision.