LADULAL Vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Chandigarh 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 21, Rule 92. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur respondent no. 1 sanctioned a loan for Rs. 1 lac appellant and respondent No. 3 but he could not repay the amount. A suit was filed and it was decreed for Rs. 1 lac for machinery and 50 thousand for construction of building to the appellant and respondent no. 1 Bank decree-holder filed and it was decreed for Rs. 1,81,011/-. The respondent no. 1 Bank decree- holder filed an execution petition. The appellant filed objections but the same were 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 proclamation 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 Prased v. Babu, 1973 AIR(SC) 2593 and M/S Shalimar Cinema v. Bhasin Corporation.

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