A.D. Koshal, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the Judgment -debtor against the dismissal of his objections under Rule 90 of order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Order 21) by the two courts below.
(2.) THE proceedings have arisen in execution of a decree for the recovery of Rs. 4,0000/ - passed in favour of Respondent No. 1 on the 31st of May, 1963. The executing Court attached land belonging to the judgment debtor and situated at Gohana and Banwasa. The land at Gohana was auctioned for Rs. 550/ - in favour of the one Banwas was sold to Hukam Chand Respondent No. 2 on the March 1965 for Rs. 2,575/ -. The amount last -mentioned was deposited by Respondent No. 2 with the executing Court against two treasury receipts, one dated the 1st of April, 1965 for Rs. 643/ - and the other dated the 23rd of August, 1965 for Rs. 1932/ -. Both the sales were set aside by the executing Court through its order dated the 24th of June, 1957, the operative part of which may be reproduced here with advantage: Out of the auction money of the land situated at Gohana Rs. 27.50 be credited to Government as commission fee. The remaining amount will also not be given to the auction purchaser unless the sale has been again effected. As regards the auction money of the land of Banwasa Rs. 129/ - be credited to the Government as Commission fee and the remaining amount would not be given to the auction purchaser unless the sale has been effected again. The warrant of sale of both the lands be again issued. Both the parcels of land were re -auctioned, the one at Gohana on the 8th of August 1967 for Rs. 1,500/ - in favour of Ram Dayal Respondent No. 3 and that at Banwasa on the 22nd of December 1970 for Rs. 4,400/ in favour of Hukam Chand Respondent No. 2. These sales were also challenged by the judgment debtor through two applications under Rule 90 of Order 21. In relation to the sale of Gohana land it was claimed inter alia that the auction had been held not at the site or location of the land but at the Tehsil office and this factor had caused loss to the judgment -debtor. A similar objection was taken to the sale in respect of the Banwasa land. The other objection contained in the two applications are not material for the purpose of deciding this appeal. The two Courts below found on a consideration of the evidence produced by the judgment debtor that he had failed to substantiate any of the objections.
(3.) AT the hearing of the appeal the Learned Counsel for the judgment -debtor has taken up the following three points: (a) It was incumbent on the Tehsildar conducting the sale of the Gobana land to hold the auction at site. He acted without jurisdiction in conducting the proceedings relating to the auction at the Tehsil office. (b) 25 per cent of the purchase -money was not paid by Respondent No. 2 to the Tehsildar immediately after the former had been declared to be the purchaser of the Banwasa land. The sale was therefore, a nullity in view of the mandatory provisions of Rule 84 of Order 21. (c) The sale of Banwasa land was a nullity also for the additional reason, that Respondent No. 2 did not pay the balance of the purchase money in lull within 15 days from the sale as required by the provisions of Rule 85 of Order 21.;