VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed against an order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide which the objection petition filed by the Judgment Debtor against the sale has been entertained and issues have been ordered to be framed.
(2.) THE Punjab National Bank, Amritsar had filed a suit for recovery against M/s Sea Lord Industries and others and the said suit was decreed on 11.9.1980. In execution of the said decree the property belonging to Bhur Singh and Harjinder Singh was attached and auctioned on 7.2.1998. The said sale was confirmed as no objections were filed against the auction held on 21.3.1998, and accordingly, the sale certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner-auction purchaser on 3.4.1998 vide Annexure P.1 attached with the petition and consequently the execution application was disposed of having been satisfied on 4.4.1998 vide order Annexure P.3. In pursuance to the confirmation of sale the petitioner herein moved an application under Order 21 Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code), for delivery of possession on 23.4.1998. On notice having been issued the Judgment Debtor filed objections against the sale on 27.5.1998. The petitioner filed reply to the said objection and took preliminary objection to the effect that the present objections were not competent under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code as there was no execution application pending in which the objections could be entertained. The petitioner has further taken up a plea that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act were not applicable and therefore, the objections could not be entertained after the expiry of limitation. However, keeping in view the fact that an application was moved by the objector along with the objection petition for condonation of delay, the learned Executing Court has been pleased to frame the following issues : "1. Whether there has taken place some material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale ? OPJD 2. Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the sale ? OPJD 3. Whether the application is within limitation and is not time barred ? OPJD 4. Relief.
(3.) LEARNED Executing Court by interpreting the provisions of Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code came to the conclusion that as no sale can be set aside without coming to the conclusion that on account of irregularity or fraud the appellant has suffered substantial injury, therefore, it is incumbent upon the Court to first allow the parties to lead evidence and it is thereafter that application under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code can be disposed off.;