Raj Mohan Singh, J. - (1.) Appellants have filed Execution Second Appeal against the impugned order dated 15.09.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Sangrur whereby order dated 25.08.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhuri has been upheld vide which objections filed by the appellants in execution have been dismissed.
(2.) A civil suit for recovery was filed by respondent No. 1 Kirshan Kumar against Rajiv Chowdhary who is missing since 05.08.2009. Trial Court decreed the suit ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2012 in a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/ - along with interest @ 9% per annum since 04.05.2009 till the date of filing of the suit i.e. 19.01.2012 and future interest @ 6% per annum till physical realization of the amount. On the basis of said decree, an execution was filed for recovery of Rs. 8,20,980/ - (Rs. 6,00,000/ - as decreetal amount, interest from 04.05.2009 to 19.01.2012 Rs. 1,44,000/ -, interest from 19.01.2012 to 23.11.2012 Rs. 2,70,000/ -, costs Rs. 27,980/ - along with expenses of present execution Rs. 22,000/ -). In execution, decree holder sold 8 biswas 5 biswasis of the property of judgment debtor Rajiv Choudhary in favour of respondent No. 2. The appellants being son and wife of JD filed objections against the auction before the Executing Court on the ground that as against recovery of Rs. 8,20,980/ -, auction has been conducted for Rs. 26,36,800/ - and no auction took place on the spot on 09.01.2014. The objectors have alleged that the auction has been conducted in utter disregard of Order 21 Rule 64 CPC. The whole of the property was not required to be sold for the recovery of Rs. 8,20,980/ -.
(3.) The objections have been contested by the decree holder claiming that property of the judgment debtor is a self acquired property and objectors have no interest therein and they do not acquire any such right through inheritance. Judgment debtor has not been declared as civilly dead by any competent authority and inheritance has not opened so far. Therefore, objectors have no right in filing objections. The report of revenue officials reflect that the property was constructed property and the same could not be sold in parts. Auctioneer being the best Judge to sell the property and to fetch maximum price and in order to prevent any loss to the Judgment debtor sold the entire property at the maximum value in open auction. No finger can be raised against the proceedings at the instance of the objectors. The objectors were fully aware about the proceedings and the decree against the judgment debtor. The brother of judgment debtor is an Advocate having common office with the judgment debtor. Once Rajiv Chowdhary has not been declared civilly dead by any competent authority so far, the objectors being son and wife of judgment debtor has no interest in the auctioned property. The third party interest has already been created by the auction and at this stage auction cannot be nullified which has been done after following proper procedure and wide publicity in order to fetch maximum price of the auctioned property. The objections have been filed after the conclusion of auction. The objections could have been filed at the commencement of the proceedings i.e. before auction. The objections under Order 21 Rule 90(3) CPC could have been filed on or before the auction and no objection can be taken into consideration at the confirmation of the sale. The confirmation has already been done on 15.10.2015.;