- (1.) This appeal is directed against the order of learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Chandigarh dt. 12.4.91, whereby he has refused to set aside sale under Order 21, Rule 90 in execution case No. 10/86, and confirmed under order 21, Rule 92. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur respondent no. 1 sanctioned a loan for Rs. 1 lac appellant and respondent No. 3 but he could not repay the amount. A suit was filed and it was decreed for Rs. 1 lac for machinery and 50 thousand for construction of building to the appellant and respondent no. 1 Bank decree-holder filed and it was decreed for Rs. 1,81,011/-. The respondent no. 1 Bank decree- holder filed an execution petition. The appellant filed objections but the same were rejected. Hence, this miscellaneous appeal.
(2.) Mr. N.K. Rastogi, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that sale was conducted on 20.3.90 without giving proper and full particulars in the proclamation of sale and thus mandatory provisions were not complied with. He has further submitted that no opportunity was given to the appellant to produce evidence regarding valuation of property. He has placed reliance on Gajadhar Prased v. Babu, 1973 AIR(SC) 2593 and M/S Shalimar Cinema v. Bhasin Corporation. On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Shishodia and Mr. Suresh Shrimalee, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner is raising objection only to delay the execution. The petitioner has not produced any evidence despite sufficient opportunities were granted to him and on the basis of alleged minor irregularity, if any, the sale cannot be called void. He has placed reliance on Mohanlal v. Firm Devichand Nathulal Jewariya, 1987 RajLW 260; M/s Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. v. M/s PSNEW Drugs (P) Ltd. and ., 1974 AIR(SC) 1331 Kaluram v. Shamboo Singh, 1964 AIR(Raj) 84 Dhinendranath Sbalchandranath Saha & Ors. v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh,984 AIR(SC) 1300 and Chuttanlal v. Md. Ikram Khan,933 AIR(All) 546
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as case law. In Mohanlal v. Firm Devichand Nathulal Jewariya notice has been given to the judgment -debtor before drawing up proclamation of sale by the executing Court and notice was duly served on him. The judgment debtor did not raise any objections at that time that the estimated market value put by the intended sale was under value or under estimated. Having not raised the objection at that time, the judgment debtor was precluded from raising such objection after the property had been put to auction and the sale had been knocked down in favour of the decree-holder who had obtained permission to bid". In M/s Kaujay Industries (P) Ltd. v. M/s PSNEW Drugs (P) Ltd. it has been observed that more inadequacy of price cannot demoshin every Court sale. Here, the Court tried its best, time after time to raise the price. It has also been observed that the sale proceedings had been pending too long and the first respondent could not even when given the opportunity, produce byerirs by private negotiation. No value report was produced by him. It has been held that we are satisfied that the District Judge has committed no material irregularity in the conduct of the sale in accepting the highest offers of appellant on September 3, 1969. In Kaluram v. Shamboo Singh , no objection to undervaluation in sale proclamation even though notice under Order 21, Rule 66 was served personally on judgment-debtor, sale at inadequate price. It has been held that judgment-debtor is estopped from raising objection that inadequacy of price was due to undervaluation in sale proclamation. In Dhinendranath Sbalchandranath Saha & Ors. v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh , it has been observed that non-compliance with Section 35 does not sale a nullity. Judgment-debtor although receiving notice of proclamation not attending up proclamation and also not taking objection to non-observance of the Section, sale is not liable to be set aside. In Chuttanlal v. Md. Ikram Khan it has been observed that under Order 21, Rule 90 judgment-debtor failing to object to under-valuation of property even where notices under Rule 66, he is estopped from urging undervaluation as ground for material irregularity.;