JAGADISH BAHADUR Vs. RAMJI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, the judgment-debtor, appeals against an order refusing to set aside a sale under O.21, Rule 90. The sale was fixed for 12 September 1932. On that date the judgment-debtor filed a petition stating that there were mistakes in the calculation of the decretal amount. The Court ordered the office to check the accounts. By the 17 the accounts had been checked and the Court then ordered the sale to be kept "under hammer" until the 19th. On the 19 the objections to the accounts were overruled and the sale was ordered to proceed. The sale was held on that date and the property was purchased, with the permission of the Court, by the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor impugns the sale on the ground of inadequacy of price and on the ground that the sale was held on a date on which it was not advertised. With regard to the price the property fetched, it is sufficient to say that the valuation of the property was entered in the sale proclamation after contest and the sum realized was approximately the value given in the sale proclamation.

(2.) The learned Court below has given reasons for considering that the value is not inadequate and I see no reason to differ from the view taken by the Court below in this matter. But with regard to the other point it appears clear that the sale must be set aside. There was no postponement of the sale on the 12 and I see no reason for taking the view adopted by the Court below that the sale must have been in the circumstances of the case "under the hammer" from that date. As I understand the phrase "the sale to be kept under hammer" it implies that the sale has in fact started.

(3.) It is clear in this case that there was no sale on the 12 September. I would therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Court below. There will be no order for costs. Let the record of the case be returned at once and the sale held at as early a date as possible. Saunders, J.