PAWAN Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter comes up on application for impleadment of Chandra Prakash as party non-petitioner so also on the application of Shri Chandra Prakash for vacating interim stay order. The learned counsel for the parties have no objection in impleadment of Chandra Prakash as party non-petitioner in the revision. Accordingly that application is allowed and Chandra Prakash s/o Shri Shiraj Ji Jain, R/o Bhagwan Pura, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara is impleaded as non-petitioner No.2.

(2.) Thereafter at the request of learned counsel for the parties instead of hearing On ex parte interim stay order, the revision petition itself has been heard finally.

(3.) By the impugned order the learned trial Court has refused the petitioner judgment-debtor's prayer made under Order 21, Rule 83 for setting aside the sale. A look at the provisions of Order 21, Rule 83, CPC would show that thereunder the judgment-debtor is entitled to request the Executing Court for postponement of the sale in certain contingencies namely that if the judgment-debtor can satisfy the Court that there is reason to believe that the amount of decree may be raised by the mortgage or lease or private sale of such property or some part thereof or of any other immovable property of the judgment-debtor, the Court may, on his application, postpone the sale. As against this a look at the impugned order shows that the sale was sought to be set aside on the ground that the valuation of the property is more than Rs. 6,25,000.00 while it has been knocked down for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000.00. Thus in substance the property was alleged to have been knocked down for inadequate price and, therefore, it was desired that the property be allowed to be sold by the judgment-debtor or in the alternative the property be put to reauction.