LADULAL Vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Chittorgarh dt. 12.4.91 Whereby he has refused to set aside sale under Order 21 Rule 90 in execution case No. 10/86, and confirmed under Order 21R. 92. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur respondent No. 1 Senctioned a loan for Rs. 1 lac for machinary and 50 thousand for construction of building to the appellant and respondent No. 3 but he could not repay the amount. A suit was filed and it was decreed for Rs. 1,81,011/ -. The respondent No. 1 Bank decree -holder filed an exedution petition. The appellant filed objections..rejected. Hence, this miscellaneous appeal.

(2.) MR . N.K. Rastogi, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that sale was conducted on 20.3.90 without giving proper and full particulars in the preclamation of sale and thus mandatory provisions were not complied with. He has further submitted that no opportunity was given to the appellant to produce evidence regarding valuation of property. He has placed reliance on Gajadhar Prasad v. Babu : [1974]1SCR372 and Shalimar Cinema v. Bhasin Corporation : AIR1987SC2081 . On the other hand Mr. D.S. Shishodia and Mr. Suresh Shrimalee, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner is raising objection only to delay the execution. The petitioner has not produced any evidence despite sufficient opportunities were granted to him and on the basis of alleged minor irregularity, if any, the sale cannot be called void. He has placed reliance on Mohanlal v. Firm Devichand Nathulal Jewariya 1987 R.L.W. 260, Kayjay Industries (P.) Ltd. v. PSNEW Drugs (P.) Ltd. and Ors. : [1974]3SCR678 , Kaluram v. Shamboo Singh , Dhinendranath Shalchandranath Saha and Ors. v. Sudhirchandra Ghosh A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1300 and Chuttanlal v. Md. Ikram Khan A.I.R. 1933 Allahabad 546.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as case law.