Jagat Narayan, J. - (1.) THIS is a judgment-debtor's revision application against an order of the executing court summarily dismissing his objection under Order 21, Rule 90 C. P. C. which was confirmed by the learned District Judge Pali on appeal.
(2.) THE judgment-debtor mortgaged his house situated in Pali for a sum of Rs. 3,499,-on 7-4-47 in favour of the respondent-decree-holder by means of a simple mortgage' bond. He did not pay the mortgage money and a final decree for sale of the mortgaged property was passed on 4-2-59 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,099-8-0 and future interest at 6 per cent per annum simple with effect from 30-4-58. In execution of the decree the mortgaged house was sold for Rs. 2,601/- in favour of the decree-holder on 12-10-60. THE present objection under O. 21, R. 90 C. P. C. was filed by the judgment-debtor on 15-10-60. It was alleged in this petition that the sale proclamation was not published properly, that the sale was knocked down after inviting bids for a short time only and that the decree-holder threatened intending bidders and prevented them from making bids for the house. This objection was dismissed summarily by the executing court after hearing the lawyer of the judgment-debtor. THE court has not dealt with the objections raised in the application in its order. It is not. stated that these objections were not pressed before it. It has dealt with some objections which were raised orally before it during the course of arguments. THE objections raised in the application were of such a nature that they could not be disposed of without giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence about them. I accordingly find that the order of the executing court summarily dismissing the objections is improper. The order of the appellate court confirming the order of the executing court is equally erroneous. So far as the objection alleging that the decree-holder threatened intending bidders and dissuaded them from offering bids is concerned it is not of a nature falling under O. 21, R. 90 C. P. C. as it does not involve any irregularity or illegality on the part of the officers conducting the sale. In this connection the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mahomed Mira Ravuthar Vs. Savvasi Vijaya Raghunadha Gopalan (l) may be referred to in which they approved of the following observations made by the High Court with regard to a similar objection : - ''the order is made under Sec. 311 of the Code (of 1882 - now O. 21, R. 90), and it is based on the ground of irregularity in the conduct of the sale. In our opinion there has been no irregularity within the meaning of the section. No charge is made against the person conducting the sale. The charge is made against him, and it amounts to this : that they acted in such a way as to prevent the best price being obtained and thus caused loss to the judgment-debtor. " I accordingly allow the revision application, set aside the orders of the courts below and remand the objection application to the executing court for decision in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on the points raised in it. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs throughout. .;