- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. At the time of arguments, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents hence only arguments' of learned Counsel for the petitioners were heard.
(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 Shanti Devi is auction purchaser in a Court sale, which was held on 1-12-1978. The sale was confirmed on 2-1-1979. On the same date i. e. 2-1-1979 legal representatives of judgment- debtor (JD) Nain Singh respondents 3 to 6 filed objections against the sale under Order XXI, Rule 90 C. P. C. The said objections were registered as Misc. Case No. 5 of 1979 on the file of Munsif Mahaban, Mathura. The learned Munsif rejected the objections through order dated 13-11-1984. Against the said order contesting respondents filed Misc. Appeal No. 155 of 1984, which was allowed by District Judge, Mathura on 27-5-1985 and auction sale was set aside. This writ petition by auction purchaser is directed against the said appellate order. The decree in execution of which auction sale in question took place was passed in a suit filed by Ram Gopal against Nain Singh predecessor in interest of contesting respondents. Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner No. 1 wife of Ram Gopal purchased the property in question. Later on Ram Gopal died leaving behind petitioners No. as his legal representatives. Suit was decreed ex parte on 14-2-1971. In auction sale 1/5 share of Nain Singh in agricultural land admeasuring 15. 75 acre was sold for Rs. 3,025/- (1/5 of 15. 75 comes to 3. 15 ). The main thrust of the objection was that the judgment-debtor had no knowledge of the execution proceedings and auction sale and he came to know about the auction sale for the first time on 14-12- 1978. It was further alleged that the valuation of the property was at least Rs. 35,000/ -.
(3.) THE learned Munsif while rejecting the objections had also held that objections were not maintainable as requisite amount of 12. 5 percent of sale money was not deposited along with objections (as required by Allahabad High Court Amendment to Order XXI, Rule 90 CPC ). Appellate Court held that before the decision of objections, the said amount had been deposited, and in view of Division Bench authority of this Court reported in Kundan Lal v. J. N. Sharma, 1962 ALJ 574, such deposit was sufficient. THE authority cited by the auction purchaser reported in R. H. C. Jung v. Agricultural Bank, 1982 ALJ 749, being authority of Single Judge was not followed by the learned District Judge. In fact the later authority is not inconsistent with the earlier authority. In the later authority only this much has been held that Allahabad amendment is not abrogated by 1976 amendment of C. P. C. On merit the appellate Court started its judgment from para 5 in the following manner: "besides a clear circumstance in favour of appellant is that his 1/6 share in 15. 15 acres irrigated land was sold and purchased by the wife of the decree-holder herself for petty sum of Rs. 3025/ -. ";