A.S. Bains, J. - (1.) THIS execution first appeal is directed against the order of the Execution Court dated 31st July, 1976.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: - - An application under order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside the sale was filed by Labh Singh, Judgment -debtor -respondent on the ground that the value of the attached property was assessed at Rs. 30,000/ - by the decree -holder himself but it was auctioned only for Rs. 24.000/ -. The other ground given in the application was that the property was locked at the time of the auction and was not shown to the bidders and that no proclamation was made. It was also mentioned that vide an agreement dated 19th January, 1972, Sher Singh and Shrimati Shakuntla Devi wife of Shri Tarsem Parkash, advocate had agreed to purchase this property for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ - and that the present price of the properly is not less than 11/2 lacs. This application was resisted by the auction purchaser and the decree -holder and the allegations in the applications were controverted. The parties contested on the following issue: - - Whether the sale is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the application under Order 21, rule 90, C. P. C. ? OPA The executing Court decided this issue in favour of the applicant Judgment -debtor and set aside the sale. Dissatisfied by the order of the learned Executing Court the, auction purchaser has filed this appeal. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the sale could not be set aside as there has been no fraud in the auction proceedings. I have gone through the judgment of the Executing Court and find that the same is quite in conformity with the law en the subject, It is observed by the Executing Court that the premises were locked at the time of the auction and were not shown to the bidders and that the sale could be effected only after the expiry of 15 days under Order 21, Rule 68, Civil Procedure Code (as amended by the State of Punjab). The auction seems to be on a very low side. The property in dispute is an industrial plot and some construction is also made on it. The property in dispute is situated in Jullundur City, where the prices are very high and even the decree -holder had also assessed the value by seeing it. Mr. D.N. Bahri, Court auctioner Jullundur 'had stated that he did not make any proclamation regarding the sale prior to the auction. From the statement of the Court Auctioner, it is evident that there was no proclamation at all and he also admitted that the house was lying locked at the time of the auction and that he could not go inside the house to have look in the house. Since there was no proclamation the sale is bad on this ground alone. Before a sale can take place, the proclamation must be made in accordance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 66, Civil Procedure Code.' But here the Government auctioner has admitted in clear terms that he did not make any proclamation. In this view of the matter, I affirm the finding of the Executing Court setting aside the sale is dispute. No other point is urged.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. Mr. Sharma says that the auction -purchaser has deposited Rs. 24,000/ - in the Executing Court and that same may refunded. It is directed that the amount of Rs. 24,000/ - shall be refunded to the auction -purchaser appellant forth with.;