DWARIKA SINGH Vs. SIRI KISHUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This an appeal by the judgment-debtor against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below by which they have dismissed his application which was filed under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., for setting aside the sale. The important question for consideration is the effect of the non-compliance of the notice referred to in Section 148 (g), Bihar Tenancy Act.

(2.) The facts are these. The sale was held on 16 January 1942. On 2nd June 1942, the judgment-debtor put in an application to set aside the sale on the ground that the processes had been fraudulently suppressed with the result that he has suffered substantial injury and that he had no knowledge of the sale till 15 May 1942. The trial Court held that there was proper service throughout the execution case and that the applicant signally failed to point out any fraud or irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale, or at any stage of the execution. He also held that the land has not been sold at an inadequate price and the applicant did not suffer any loss.

(3.) With regard to the date of knowledge of the sale, he pointed out that the applicant did not examine himself and that his allegation that he learnt about the sale for the first time from Indradeo Singh on 15 May 1942 cannot be believed. Accordingly he was satisfied that the applicant had full knowledge about the execution and sale from the processes served and that the application was barred by limitation. The judgment-debtor then went in appeal to the learned District Judge who summarily dismissed his appeal on 5 February 1943. Mr. Salisbury has given sufficient reasons why he was satisfied that the appeal should be dismissed although for myself I would have been more satisfied if the appeal had not been dismissed summarily but had been disposed of after hearing the contentions of both parties. The contentions wore serious and not frivolous.