SARDAR SINGH Vs. CHUNNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree for Rs. 7120/- was passed against Beeru and in favour of Chnnu Lal. Prior to the passing of this decree, the land in question measuring 116 Kanals (or 14-1/2 acres) was admittedly attached. Later, Beeru the judgement-debtor transferred the said property in favour of the petitioner and his five brothers i.e. his sons through a consent decree dated November 22, 1976. Chunni Lal decree-holder impugned this consent decree through a suit claiming that the same had been brought about with a view to defeat the right of the creditors, including him and, therefore, be set aside declaring it to be null and void. This suit of Chunni Lal, though was dismissed by the trial Court on December 1, 1979, yet the appellate Court decreed the same vide judgment dated December 18, 1982, Exhibit D.H.I. Earlier to the dismissal of Chunni Lal's suit by the trial Court on December 1, 1979, the petitioner filed a suit against him i.e. Chunni Lal and impleaded his brothers and father as proforma defendants seeking permanent injunction that the property which stood transferred in their names should not be sold in execution of the above-noted decree passed infavour of Chunni Lal. During the pendency of that suit, a compromise was arrived at between Chunni Lal and the petitioner, the material terms of which as per the admissions made by the decree-holder in the present execution application itself, were as follows:-

(2.) In case of default of any of the above noted instalments, the decree-holder was made entitled to recover the entire amount through the execution of the decree referred to above along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. In pursuance of this agreement, the petitioner only paid Rs. 2315/- on September 15, 1979. He failed to pay the rest of the instalments. As a result of this, Chunni Lal filed the present execution proceedings for the realization of the balance decretal amount alongwith interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum as agreed to by Sardar Singh vide above-noted agreement between the parties. During these proceedings, the above-noted land measuring 116 Kanals has been sold for a sum of Rs. 13,000/- only. The petitioner filed objections against this auction sale which were summarily dismissed by the execution primarily on the ground that he had no interest in the property in question. Even his appeal against this order of the executing Court has been dismissed by the District Judge, Narnaul. He impugns these orders with the assertion that as a matter of fact these execution proceedings are the result of a fraud which has been played upon the Court by the decree-holder i.e. Chunni Lal. Besides, this, it is also contended on his behalf that neither the sale proclamation was prepared in terms of Order 21, rule 66, Civil Procedure Code, nor any due publicity was given prior to the sale of the property in question. This stand of his is, however, sought to be refuted by the respondent decree-holder on the plea that firstly the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the auction proceedings, he having no interest in the property in question, and secondly the provisions of Order 21 rule 66, Civil Procedure Code, were duly complied with. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner does deserve to succeed.

(3.) So far as the question of petitioner's locus standi to impugn the sale by auction is concerned, I see no weight in the objection of the learned counsel for the decree-holder. The same deserves to be summarily rejected in view of the fact that the decree-holder has himself impleaded the petitioner as a party. He thus being a party to the proceedings, has every right to impugn the execution proceedings and to challenge the same by way of appeal and revision. Otherwise also, I am satisfied that the petitioner does have some interest in the property in question and it is primarily on the basis of his statement or agreement which he entered into with the respondent decree holder during the pendency of his suit for permanent injunction referred to above that the decree-holder is claiming interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the decretal amount due to him.