Ashok Bhushan, Arun Tandon - (1.) -Heard Sri Veer Singh learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A. P. Srivastava on behalf of the respondent.
(2.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2003, passed by the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1. The brief facts necessary for deciding the appeal are that the respondent No. 1 took an agriculture loan of Rs. 59,000 from the Chandauli Branch of Union Bank of India. The loan was repayable in 17 equal half yearly instalments. The respondent No. 1, who was writ petitioner, committed default in depositing the instalments, due to which recovery proceedings were initiated at the instance of the bank for recovery of the outstanding amount as arrears of land revenue. A citation to appear was issued on 25.11.1995. In pursuance of the citation to appear, writ-petitioner was arrested and after deposited Rs. 30,000 he was released. Writ-petitioner thereafter represented the matter to the bank and also filed a writ petition in this court challenging the recovery proceedings. In the writ petition, under an interim order he was directed to deposit 50% of the amount and to furnish security for the balance amount. A sum of Rs. 9,500 was deposited by the writ-petitioner on 22.1.1996 and a security was also furnished. The interim order in the writ petition could not be extended, due to which the recovery proceedings revived and sale proclamation was issued fixing 6.1.1997 for sale. Ultimately auction took place on 12.3.1997, and the appellant is stated to have offered the highest amount of Rs. 60,400. The Tehsildar conducted the sale and the Sub-Divisional Officer has confirmed the sale on 31.3.1997.
(3.) AGAINST non-extension/grant of interim order in writ petition, the writ petitioner filed a Special Appeal No. 260 of 1997. The Division Bench passed an order for deposit of the entire sale price with 5% interest. Pursuant to the order of the Division Bench in special appeal, the writ-petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 63,420 on 27.5.1997. In the meantime it appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer also executed a sale deed in favour of auction purchaser. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that amount deposited by the writ-petitioner, i.e., Rs. 64,420 in the treasury is still lying there and has not been withdrawn by either of the party. The auction purchaser was subsequently impleaded as a party and he also filed his counter-affidavit.;