VIDYA HATECHERY FARM Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the orders of learned District Judge, Solan, dated 6/11/1997 whereby the objections filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor against the confirmation of the sale were dismissed.

(2.) Petitioner Vidya Hatchery was the principal judgment debtor in a decree suffered by the JDs M/s. Vidya Hatchery Farm, Nand Lal and Diwakar Dutt Sharma for an amount of Rs. 1,00,904-05, dated 20-9-1990 with future interest at the rate of 13% per annum payable to the decree-holder bank. The decree-holder moved an application for execution of the decree and recovery of Rs. 1,71,980-73 with costs of Rs. 6,582-60 on 30-6-1992. The immovable properties of the petitioner-judgment debtor and Nand Lal were attached and sold. However, on the objections of the JDs the auction was set aside. Fresh warrants of sale were issued and property of the petitioner was sold on 10-3-1997 in an auction conducted by the Tehsildar, Solan (Naib Tehsildar, Krishangarh, Distt. Solan). The property was sold for Rs. 2,00,000.00 to the auction purchaser-respondent. This amount was deposited in the Court. The present petitioner filed objections to the sale. It was alleged that sale was to be conducted in lots and the sale of three bighas of attached property would have been sufficient to satisfy the decree. It was also the case of the petitioner that proclamation was not properly published. The petitioner also took objection that value of the land in question in the revenue record was Rs. 68,964.00 per bigha, as per the average sale price for the year 1995-96, as reflected in the certificate issued by the Patwari but the entire land was sold for meagre amount of Rs. Two lacs.

(3.) Learned District Judge vide his impugned orders dismissed the objections, holding that only recourse open to the judgment debtor was to deposit the decretal amount in accordance with Rule 89 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the confirmation of the sale. The learned District Judge took a view that fact that house of the petitioner was also sold along with the land has no consequence, as according to him, the entire property was mortgaged with the Bank.