RAM PRASAD Vs. SHIVA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a very unfortunate case and the misfortune to the parties has arisen mainly because everybody concerned, namely the Court, the decree-holders and the judgment-debtor, has neglected the proceedings.

(2.) A decree for sale on foot of a mortgage dated 9 May 1919 was made in favour of the respondents on 20 May 1928. A decree was made for the sum of something less than Rs. 3,400 against the present appellant, which sum is said to be now due.

(3.) The decree-holders took out an execution of the decree, but proceeded in a very slovenly manner. They made their application on 7 December 1928, but without any verified statement and without any certificate of encumbrance granted by the sub-registrar. Although the important documents mentioned above had not been filed by the decree-holders, the Court ordered a notice to issue to the judgment debtor, in order to settle the terms of the auction notification, under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P.C. and fixed 15 January 1929 for the purpose. On that date the judgment-debtor was absent and the Court said that thenceforward proceedings should be taken ex parte against the judgment-debtor. It was found that the decree-holders had not filed the verified statement required by Order 21, Rule 66, Sub-rule 3, and the sub-registrar's certificate required to be filed under Rule 106, Order 21. The decree-holders were directed to produce these documents and also a copy of the decree. Time was given to them up to 1 February 1929.