R.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE appellant has challenged the order dated 1.4.2005 whereby his execution application has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), No. 2, Alwar.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for money recovery against the appellant and Vijay Chand Sancheti, the appellant's father and against M/s. Naveen Redimed Garments, a firm run by the appellant and his father. According to the respondents, the appellant and his father had borrowed the money to the tune of Rs. 60,000/ - on interest @ Rs. 1.75, However, neither the appellant nor his father was able to repay the said debt. Therefore, the respondents filed a civil suit, which eventually decreed in their favour vide order dated 15.10.2004. Subsequently, it was ordered that the property belonging to the appellant and his father should be auctioned. Consequently, an auction was held. However, the appellant moved an application under Order 21 Rules 90/92, C.P.C. The said application was dismissed by the learned Court below. Hence, this appeal before us. Dr. P.C. Jain, the learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that procedure under Order 21 Rule 54, C.P.C. has not been followed. Moreover, the procedure under Order 21 Rule 67, C.P.C. has not been adhered to. Therefore, the entire auction proceedings stand vitiated. On the other hand, Mr. Rajnish Gupta, the learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that the auction proceedings were not related to the property of Vijay Chand Sancheti, but related to the appellant's property. Therefore, the objections raised by the appellant that the legal heirs of the deceased, Vijay Chand Sancheti, were not taken on record, is meaningless. Secondly, vide order dated 23.2.2005, in fact, the legal heirs of the deceased, Vijay Chand Sancheti, were taken on record. Thirdly, according to the Order 21 Rule 21 A, in case the judgment debtor died after the proclamation is made, then the auction sale cannot be set aside. Lastly, he has contended that the contentions raised by the appellant before this Court were never raised before the learned trial Court.
(3.) WE have heard both the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.;