- (1.) The petitioner has challenged two orders in this revision petition dated 16.12.2013 and 24.12.2013. In short, respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 37743/- and Rs. 291/- against M/s. Shivala Sweets, its proprietor and S. Gurbachan Singh, Contractor. The suit was decreed on 1.10.1997 against the defendants, who were held liable to pay the decretal amount jointly or severely. A plot of 125 sq. yards was mortgaged at the time of securing loan from the Bank out of which 251/2 sq. yards was sold by the mortgagor which ultimately came to the father of the petitioner through Balram Kumar vide sale deed dated 22.4.1999. Before the sale deed could have been registered, respondent No. 1/Bank filed the execution on 15.1.1999 for recovery of the decretal amount. The father of the petitioner also obtained loan from Indian Overseas Bank by mortgaging the said land measuring 25-1/2 sq. yards but in the execution proceedings, the entire land measuring 125 sq. yards was put to auction on 5.11.2001 in which Sandeep Bhaskar (respondent No. 2 herein) was the highest bidder. Before the sale could have been confirmed, both the Indian Overseas Bank/loanee and Sohan Singh (father of the petitioner) filed objection in which Sohan Singh had alleged that he had purchased the property on 20.4.1999 by way of registered sale deed and the Indian Overseas Bank had alleged that the said sale deed is pledged with them against a loan secured by Sohan Singh. However, the said objection was dismissed by the Executing Court on 16.12.2013. On the same day, the sale was also confirmed and the sale certificate was issued to respondent No. 2. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for depositing the decretal amount and retrieving the land purchased by his father but the said application has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.12.2003. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, the present revision petition has been filed in which notice of motion was issued and status quo was ordered to be maintained. Pursuant to the notice, respondent No. 2 has put in appearance and has contested the revision petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is invoking the equitable jurisdiction of this Court being ready to pay the entire decretal amount and also some compensation to the auction purchaser if the property sold in auction is allowed to be retained by him. This offer is declined by the counsel for the respondent.
(3.) After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the offer made by the petitioner at this stage is also not inconsonance with Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short the C.P.C.] and Order 21 Rule 92 of the C.P.C. because Order 21 Rule 89 of the C.P.C. provides that where immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, any person claiming an interest in the property sold at the time of the sale or at the time of making the application, or acting for or in the interest of such person, may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in Court for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase money. However, Order 21 Rule 92(2) of the C.P.C. provides that such an application has to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of sale. In view thereof, once the sale has been confirmed and the respondent is not inclined for any adjustment with the petitioner, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this revision petition. Hence, the present petition is found to be denuded of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.;