MOHANLAL Vs. FIRM DEVICHAND NATHULAL JEWARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRM Devichand Nathulal filed a suit in Court of Civil Judge, Udaipur for recovery of Rs. 9866/- and obtained a decree from that Court against petitioner Mohanlal, In execution of that Decree, the decree-holder firm not attached house of the petitioner situated in village Bhabharana, Salumber Parsola Distt. Udaipur. In execution of the decree, the house of the petitioner was put to auction and after obtaining the permission of the Court, the decree holder also made the bid which was knocked down in his favour for Rs. 16351/-on 7th January, 1984. The petitioner judgment debtor filed objections before the executing Court stating that auction sale was irregular because the decree-holder and sale-ameen had joined hands. It was alleged that publication of the proclamation under Order 21 Rule 66 C. P. C. was not made according to law. The market value of the house was Rs. 50,000/- while the auction bid of the decree-holder was only to the tune of Rs. 16351/- and the same was accepted. The application was opposed by the decree-holder. He stated that the judgment-debtor had not raised any objection about the valuation of the house at the time the terms and conditions of proclamation sale were settled.

(2.) THE executing Court rejected the objections filed by the judgment debtor by his order dated April 7, 1984. THE executing Court stated that in his application under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure the decree-holder had given the value of the property proposed to be got sold in execution of the decree at Rs. 15,300 and notice thereof was served on the judgment debtor and he did not raise any objection at that time against the estimated market value put by the decree-holder in his application under Order 21 Rule 66, C. P. C. Accordingly the objections filed by the petitioner judgment-debtor were dismissed. THE petitioner filed an appeal before the District Court which was heard by the Addl. District, Judge, the judgment-debtor advanced three arguments. THE first argument was regarding estimated value of property put by the decree-holder in the proclamation-sale. Second objection was with regard to non compliance of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 66, C. P. C. in accordance with law. Last objection was that the decree-holder did not deposit 25 % of the difference amount remaining after appropriation of Rs. 14,850/- which was due under the decree against the auction amount of Rs. 16351/ -. THEse objections were not raised by the judgment-debtor before the Executing Court.