MILAP CHANDRA,J. - (1.) THIS petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151, C.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated August 4, 1987 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Byas in S.B. Civil Execution Second Appeal No. 10 of 1974, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated May 13, 1974 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated May 13, 1974 by which he affirmed the order of the Civil Judge, Hanumangarh dated December 21, 1973, dismissing the objection petition moved under Order 21 Rule 90, C.P.C. of the Judgment -debtor -petitioner. The facts of the case giving rise to this review petition may be summarised thus.
(2.) ON May 10, 1956, the decree -holder Champalal obtained a decree for recovery of certain amount against the judgment -debtor -petitioner Narain Das. On May 22, 1968, third execution application was moved for the recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 9,588/ -. An immovable property situated in the town of Sangaria belonging to the judgment -debtor was attached. It was put to auction sale. Permission was granted to the decree -holder under Order 21 Rule 72, C.P.C. to take part in the bid. His bid, being highest, was accepted. The judgment -debtor -petitioner moved an objection petition under Order 21 Rule 90, C.P.C. for setting aside the sale on various grounds. After taking reply of the decree -holder and recording the evidence of the parties, the executing court (Civil Judge, Hanumangarh) rejected the objection petition. His appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar on May 13, 1974 and his second appeal was dismissed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Vyas on August 4, 1987. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the judgment -debtor -petitioner that admittedly sale proclamation for the sale of the judgment -debtor's property situated in the town of Sangaria was issued for 3rd, 4th and 5th October, 1968 and the attached property was also put to auction on 7th October, 1968 in the court premises at Hanumangarh despite the fact that the sale proclamation was not issued for the auction sale on 7th October and also for the auction in the court premises at Hanumangarh. He further contended that these facts escapped the notice of this Court and on this ground alone the review petition deserves to be allowed and the auction sale should be set aside. He also contended that the decree -holder did not deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 1391/ - within 15 days of the acceptance of the bid and it was deposited after about 5 years thereof. He lastly contended that this Court did not take into consideration that the judgment -debtor -petitioner deposited the entire decretal amount in the executing court on October 8, 1974.
(3.) IN reply, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the non -petitioners (the heirs of decree -holder late Champalal) that the auction in the court premises was permissible and no fresh proclamation was required to be issued if the auction was held within 7 days of the dates notified in the sale proclamation. He further contended that these objections have been raised for the first time after 20 years and the judgment under review cannot be set aside on this ground. He also contended that the review petition cannot be allowed by another judge even if he takes another view of the matter. He relied upon Davarqju Pillat v. Sellayya Pillai : AIR1987SC1160 . He also contended that the deposit of Rs. 9,885/ - by the judgment -debtor was not within limitation and as such auction sale could not be set aside. He relied upon P.K. Unni v. Ninnala Industries : [1990]1SCR687 . He lastly contended that the said objections cannot now be permitted to be raised in the review petition as they were not taken before the executing court, first appellate court and also before this Court in second appeal. He relied upon Smt. Pushpa v. Ganpat Singh .;