JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) Heard Sri A. N. Bhargava and
Sri Deoraj, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. No one has appeared for the respondents.
(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner
has prayed for quashing the order dated
24th April, 1985 passed by 1st Additional
District Judge, Bijnor by which Appeals No.
22 of 1983 and 152 of 1984 filed by Bharat
Singh, respondent No. 1, have been allowed.
(3.) Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are; in pursuance of a money decree
properties of judgment debtor were sold on
20th August, 1982 in which the petitioner
was the auction purchaser. An application
was filed by respondent No. 1, judgment
debtor, against the action under Order XXI,
Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure. In the
application it was stated that auction proceedings are illegal and fabricated and the
provisions of Order XXI Rule 68 of Code of
Civil Procedure have not been followed. It
was stated that auction purchaser is son
in-law of decree holder and no permission
of the Court was taken for bid. It was further stated that value of the property is Rs.
2.5 lacs, which has been auctioned for less
amount. The decree holder objected to the
application and submitted that proclamation was issued for the auction fixed on 20th
August, 1982 and provisions of Order XXI
Rule 68 of Code of Civil Procedure were followed. The decree
holder also raised objection that application is barred by time. The
trial Court after hearing the parties took the
view that according to Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the application for setting
aside the sale was to be made within 60 days
whereas the application was filed on 1-12-
1982. The trial Court held that application
is barred by time. The trial Court further
held that judgment debtor was aware of the
proceedings since he made applications on
21st August, 1982 and 25th September,
1982. The statement of Amin and auction
purchaser were also recorded by the Court.
The auction was also approved on 1st December, 1982.
The trial Court held that auction was held according to procedure
prescribed. The application was held to be
barred by time and was consequently rejected. Two appeals
were filed by the judgment debtor being Appeal No. 22 of 1983
against the order dated 1st December, 1982
and Appeal No. 152 of 1984 against the order dated 11th January, 1983 passed by trial
Court rejecting the application under Order
XXI, Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure. The
appellate Court allowed the appeals and held
that application was not barred by time. This
writ petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 24th April, 1985 passed by the
appellate Court.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.