UCO BANK Vs. JAGDISH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions have been filed for setting aside the sale of immovable property of the Judgment debtor Dhani Ram, which took place on 16th April, 2001, in an open auction. Petition No. 199 of 2001 has been filed by the decree -holder Bank. The second petition 308 of 2001 has been filed by one Mohinder Kumar r/o Kothi Batala, Tehsil and distt. Bilaspur (HP). Applicant Mohinder Kumar is stranger and has no interest in the property.

(2.) It appears judgment debtors Jagdish Ram and Dhani Ram suffered a decree in the amount of Rs. 1, 77,534.68 on 13th May, 1986. The amount payable to the decree -holder -bank swelled to Rs.3, 79,916.28, when the execution petition was filed after adding interest. On June 23, 1997 the immovable property of Judgment debtor No.l was directed to be attached. The sale proclamation was drawn by the Registry of this Court. No body came forward to offer any bid on the date fixed for the auction of the property. On 4th March, 1998 fresh proclamation was ordered to be drawn and issued. Learned counsel for the decree holder on 4th March, 1998 stated that he will arrange for bidders. Again, warrants of sale were received back unexecuted with the report that no one came forward to bid nor any bank representative was present on the date fixed for auction. Fresh warrants were ordered to be issued on 12th June, 1998. Warrants of sale again could not be executed for want of bidders. Thereafter, steps were not taken by the decree holder for issuance of fresh warrants of sale. When the matter came up before the court learned counsel for the decree -holder represented that decree -holder -Bank may be permitted to participate in the auction as nobody is coming forward to purchase the property. The decree -holder -bank was in the circumstances, permitted to bid in the auction of the attached property. The auction was held on 22nd September, 2000 but again nobody came forward to give bid. The persons who were present stated that they are not willing to give any bid. Even the representative of the decree -holder -bank was not present. The matter came up before this court on 27.10.2000. Learned counsel for the decree -holder represented that the concerned Branch Manager could not be present on the date fixed for auction, as he was waiting for necessary authorisation from his Head Office. At the instance of the learned counsel for the decree -holder, fresh warrants for the sale of attached property were directed to be issued. Learned counsel for the decree -holder specifically stated that "representative of the decree -holder shall be present to participate in the auction on the date fixed for such auction." The auction was held on 16th April, 2001. Smt. Shyama was the highest bidder who offered Rs.40,000/ - for the attached share of judgment debtor No. 1 in the property. As many as 11 persons participated in the bid. Sh. Satish Suman, Field Assistant of the decree -holder bank, Darlaghat Branch, as representative of the decree -bolder bank was present at the time of auction. However, he did not give any bid on behalf of the decree - holder bank.

(3.) The decree -holder in its petition (OMP No. 199 of 2001) prays for setting aside of the sale on the grounds that: "(a) there was no proper publication or proclamation of sale on the spot with the result that better and prospective buyers could not come on the spot and the entire sale proceedings were held in hush hush manner and the auction purchaser stated to be a lady who is closely related to judgment debtor was not on the spot nor did she give any bid for the purchase of the land in question." (b) the sale was made for inadequate consideration and if the auction purchaser was ready to pay Rs. 1,00,000/ - then the sale may be confirmed."