Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE appellant -plaintiff Mohd. Hanif S/o. Ahmedji has filed the present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure aggrieved by the rejection of his suit by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara on 04.03.2014 dismissing the Suit No. 117/2011 (53/2008) which was filed by the plaintiff -appellant Mohd. Hanif seeking cancellation of the sale deed of his industrial unit which was executed by the defendants -Rajasthan Financial Corporation ('RFC') in favour of the defendant No. 3 - Akil Ahmed Sheikh S/o. Badruddin Sheikh on 15.09.2006. The unit in question was taken over by the defendant -RFC while exercising its powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 ('the S.F.C. Act') and the same was put to public auction and was ultimately sold to the defendant No. 3 -Akil Ahmed Sheikh, since the appellant -plaintiff had defaulted in re -payment of the loan amount taken by him.
(2.) THE facts leading to filing of the present suit, as noticed by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order dated 04.03.2014 are quoted herein below for ready reference: - - The reasons assigned by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara for dismissal of the suit aforesaid, while deciding issue No. 1 and the other relevant findings are also quoted herein below for ready reference: - -
(3.) THE learned counsel Mr. Arvind Samdariya appearing for the plaintiff -appellant vehemently submitted that the industrial unit in question of the plaintiff has been sold at throwaway price of Rs. 90,000/ - only even though the land rate as per the DLC rates itself would go over Rs. 2,00,000/ - and besides this, there were some constructed portions on the land in question and, therefore, the sale deed dated 15.09.2006 which was executed by the defendant -RFC at Rs. 90,000/ - in favour of the defendant No. 3 deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel also submitted that the other aspirants who sought to purchase the industrial unit in question were not even allowed by the defendant -RFC and their offers were not entertained by the defendant -RFC and, therefore also, for this reason, the present first appeal filed by the plaintiff -appellant deserves to be allowed. The learned counsel read the statements of the witnesses DW -1 and DW -2 before the Court in the present first appeal.;