MOHINDER SINGH Vs. HARBANS KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the appellate order of the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, passed in execution proceedings.

(2.) A money decree was passed against one Kartar Singh. Kartar Singh died and left behind his widow and children. The decree-holder sought to execute the decree by attachment and sale of 35 Kanals 6 Marlas of land belonging to the widow and children of Kartar Singh. The effort of the decree-holder was successful inasmuch as he sold the land in dispute in favour of his father without seeking permission of the Court. Objections raised by the judgment-debtors before the executing Court were sustained. In appeal before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, inter alia, the following finding came to be recorded :

(3.) It is well settled that before an objection under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be sustained there has to be either a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting a sale. Additionally, the applicant must have sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud. Nowhere, substantial injury is writ large on the face of it. The earlier judgment-debtor of the Additional District Judge inter parties is that land worth Rs. 40,000/- or Rs. 50,000/- was sold for a partly sum of Rs. 7,000/-. This being the value of the land, substantial injury is again surfaced when the land has been sold for only Rs. 12,500/-. Mr. Sarin, however, vehemently contended that inadequacy of price was no ground for setting aside the sale. Here no such question arises, because the judgment inter parties of the Additional District Judge is already to the effect that land is worth Rs. 40,000/- or Rs. 50,000/-. On that score the earlier sale was set aside coupled with the other factors. Inadequacy of price in the present situation assumes significance when the same fault has been committed for the second time.