- (1.) THIS order will dispose of this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The facts giving rise to this petition may be noticed thus : Mehar Chand and his three sons, namely, Sarvshri Sher Singh, Hira Lal and Gulshan, took a loan from the respondent-bank for the purchase of a tractor. In the process, they mortgaged two parcels of land. One parcel of land measuring 58 bighas 4 biswas is owned by Sarvsliri Sher Singh, Hira Lal and Gulshan, sons of Mehar Chand, whereas the other parcel measuring 51 bighas 4 biswas was owned by Mehar Chand since deceased. Since the loan was not repaid, the bank filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 70,050. 09. The bank also claimed interest, a preliminary decree was passed for the recovery of Rs. 70,050. 09 with interest at 11 per cent. per annum. The amount was not paid within a period of six months, the bank consequently moved the court for passing a final decree. The final decree was consequently passed on July 22, 1989, for the recovery of Rs. 70,050. 09 with interest at 11 per cent. per annum by sale of the mortgaged property. As already observed, the amount was still not paid. The bank consequently took execution and the mortgaged properties were ordered to be sold on October 1, 1992, for the recovery of the decretal amount. Prior to this, all the four judgment-debtors filed an objection petition, which was dismissed by the executing court. When the properties were ordered to be sold, Gulshan, one of the sons of Mehar Chand, filed the present petition calling in question the order dated September 3, 1992, of the executing court whereby the hypothecated goods, namely, tractor and land, were ordered to be sold as per the schedule given therein.
(2.) THE objections as now raised in the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may also be noticed ; (i) The court wrongly awarded interest at 11 per cent. per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. (ii) The judgment-debtors being agricultural labourers and their income being less than Rs. 2,400 per annum, their property cannot be sold in view of the provisions of Section 3 (c) of the Haryana Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1989. (iii) The loan was not taken for agricultural purpose and in any case they had already paid a sum of Rs. 37,000. (iv) Mehar Chand having died on September 16, 1992, the mortgaged property could not be sold till such time as his heirs are brought on record.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.;