LEGAL HEIRS OF RAM KUMAR Vs. BANSHILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.L. Jain for the revision-petitioner and Mr. S.R. Bhandari for the non-petitioners.

(2.) After the aforesaid order in the revision petition the judgment-debtor preferred an appeal seeking condonation of delay execution of limitation, as the appeal has been delayed because of the pendency of the review petition. The delay was condoned and the appeal was entertained. It was ultimately decided on 9.2.83 and the case was remanded back to the execution court directing the executing court to decide the application under Order 21 Rule 89, after hearing arguments of the parties. Curiously, in this order, the appellate court, oblivious of what was held in the revision petition by Hon'ble. Mr. A.P. Sen. J., held that an application under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC was not decided by the executing court and, therefore, it committed a grave error in confirming the sale without deciding that application. It is strange that nobody pointed out the aforesaid decision in the revision petition to the learned judge who remanded the case back.

(3.) A revision petition was preferred by the auction purchaser against the remand order. In this revision application also it was not pointed out that earlier. Hon. Mr. A.P. Sen, J. had held that the order dated 23.9.72 was a composite order deciding application under Order 21 Rule 92 CPC as well as confirming the sale. The result was that the revision petition was dismissed holding that the order challenged in the revision merely directed the executing court to decide the appellant's application under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC on the merits before confirming the sale since that application was pending on the day of the order dated 22.1.72 confirming the sale. Thereafter the executing court, on 4.2.91 decided the application under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC in favour of the Judgment-debtor and set aside the sale subject to payment of compensation to the auction-purchaser for improvements made in the property over the years. Appeals were filed against that order by the auction-purchaser as well as by the L Rs. of the Judgment-debtor. While the auction-purchaser was aggrieved by the setting aside of the sale the LRs. of the Judgment-debtor were aggrieved by the order for payment of compensation for improvement in the property. Both the appeals were decided by the District Court on 16.2.96. The appeal for the auction-purchaser was allowed and the order setting aside the sale was set aside. The appeal of the LRs, of the Judgment-debtor was rejected. Against this order, the LRs. of the Judgment-debtor have filed this revision petition.