- (1.) In spite of sufficient service no one appeared on behalf of contesting Respondents.
(2.) Heard Sri Arjun Singhal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
(3.) Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, K.K. Maheshwari and Rukmani Sevak obtained a money decree against Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 Manoj Kumar Jaiswal and Bhagwan Das Mangal Das (a trade name). In execution of the decree a house and a shop belonging to the judgment debtor was sold through auction and was purchased by the Petitioner on 4.2.1976 for Rs. 1,44,000/-. Proceedings for challenging the auction were initiated by the Judgment debtor. He also deposited the amount under order XXI Rule 89 Code of Civil Procedure However, executing court/Civil Judge (S.D.), Azamgarh refused to grant benefit of the said rule to the judgment debtor through order dated 1.5.1976 which was confirmed by this Court through order dated 19.11.1976. Thereafter, matter was carried to the Supreme Court in the form of Civil Appeal No. 236 of 1977 which was disposed of on 14.11.1991 by the following direction:- Taking these factors into account we direct that the auction sale of the said properties shall be set aside on the Appellants paying to Respondent No. 3 the auction purchaser a sum of Rs. 1,44,800/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit of the said amount till the date of payment. The said amount on calculation by the executing court be paid by the Appellants within a period of four months failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs. In calculating the amount payable by the Appellants to Respondent No. 3 credit shall be given to the Appellants for the sum deposited in court and interest earned thereon, if any. The execution court to calculate the actual amount payable by the Appellants to Respondent No. 3 within four weeks of an application being made to the executing court for this purpose. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.;