M. P.Singh, J. - (1.) OPPOSITE party No 3, filed a suit, in the year 1975, against the opposite party Nor 4 for recovery of money. It was decreed on 11-7-1979 for a sum of Rs. 1626/-,
(2.) THE said decree was put in execution (Execution case No. 34 of 1981) in the court of learned Munsif, Hamirpur. It was allowed. THE disputed property was sold in execution of the decree on 7-10-1988. THE opposite party No. 5 was the highest bidder. His bid was accepted. He deposited one fourth of the audtion money on the same day and the balance amount was deposited thereafter. THE sale was confirmed. The petitioner filed an objection Under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC en the ground that he has purchased the property on 6-2-1986 for valuable consideration. His name was also mutated. He has entered in possession of the same. He was not aware of any proceedings pending in the Court. Another objection was filed by the opposite party No. 4, the judgment-debtor, under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC on the ground that the decree has already been adjusted between the parties outside the court. The entire decree stood satisfied. The notice of the execution case was not served on him. The auction proceeding is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
(3.) THE learned Munsif vide order dated 15-2-1989 rejected the objection of the petitioner as well as of the opposite party No 4. Against this order only the petitioner filed a revision before the District Judge, Hamirpur; It was dismissed on 12-8-1991, against which the present writ petition has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.;