S.P. Goyal, J. - (1.) THE appellant firm took loan of Rs. 3.50 lakhs from the respondent Punjab Financial Corporation, and out of this amount paid back Rs. 1.50 lakhs. But default having been committed in the payment of the remaining amount the respondent moved an application under section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') for an order for the sale of the property pledged with the corporation as security for the said loan. The learned District Judge after taking necessary proceedings under Section 32 of the Act, directed the said property to be sold. It was notified for sale in pursuance to that order, after the issuance of a proclamation for sale the judgment debtor (present appellant) moved an application that it may be allowed to sell part of the machinery by private negotiations and clear all the dues of the respondent through a phased programme of payment. The request of the judgment -debtor was opposed by the respondent and the said application was dismissed by the learned additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated June 10th, 1975. Aggrieved with that order the Judgment debtor has come up in this appeal.
(2.) THE only contention raised by Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal was that only such portion of the property under attachment could be sold as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree in view of the provisions of Rule 64 of order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The machinery under attachment according to the learned counsel was worth more than Rs. 20 Lakhs and the Court without passing an order under Rule 64 order 21 Code of Civil Procedure had no jurisdiction to put whole of the property to sale. I, however, do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel. No such objection was raised by the appellant in the lower Court and the validity of the impugned order, therefore, cannot be questioned on this basis Moreover, as to whether the whole of the property pledged or any part thereof is to be sold was to be determined by the learned District Judge during proceedings under Section 32 of the Act and the provisions of Rule 64 order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not govern the sale proceedings held in pursuance of the order passed thereunder. Once the whole of the property under attachment is directed to be sold, the objection that only a part of the pledged property would be sufficient to discharge the debt of the respondent and the same may, therefore, be put to sale would not be maintainable.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.;