UCO BANK Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application the decree holder bank has prayed that sale of immovable property of the judgment debtors held on 15-11-1988 may be set aside and it may be ordered to be resold on the ground that auction purchaser Surinder Krishan had not deposited 75% of the sale price within 15 days from the date of auction as required under Order 21 Rule 85 Code of Civil Procedure. According to decree holder bank, this sale was effected in favour of the auction purchaser in connivance with the judgment debtors as he is son of judgment debtor No. 4. This application has been resisted by the auction purchaser.

(2.) This Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

(3.) Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the decree holder bank has urged that the provisions of Order 21 Rules 84 and 85 are mandatory and the sale conducted in contravention thereof is nullity and deserves to be set aside and the property in question should be resold. For making this submission, Mr. Sood has relied upon Manilal Mohanlal Shah and Ors. v. Sardar Syed Ahmed Mohamad and Anr, 1954 AIR(SC) 349; Uttamchand Milapchand v. Balkrishna Ramnath, 1961 AIR(Bom) 224; Tapesh Chandra Bagchi v. United Bank of India Ltd and Ors.,1969 AIR(Gau) 10 ; Subbammal v. P. Gurusamy Thevar and Ors., 1974 AIR(Mad) 278 ; Mool Chand v. Collector, Jalaun and Ors, 1982 AIR(All) 141 and Ram Singh v. Uttam Chand, 1985 AIR(P&H) 351.