.r.227 No. (4 ' 2009 / Anand Agrawal S/o RR. Agrawal ,agé about 53 years, Through Anand Trading Company RI F Fafadih Raipur (C G.) ciuxbww’,u\d’“ Débwgi£ ”\Qqj‘t) VERSUS PETITIONER Ashok Leyland Finance (A division of Induslnd Bank Limi§ted), Through Branch 'ofiice, Babla Complex, G.E. Road, Near Coffee House, Raipur (C.G.)Through Mr. Charanjeet»Sing€ L De..cA M2. \wkmWQ S/o Mr. Indeerjeet Singh Pramod Agrawal >S/o R. Agrawal, Near Agangiaalgsgewfg-ragga? RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF IN/DIA W IN THE HON’BLE HIGH'COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w d g, w pal?) NO- 492i, mm we? mm (Wan mmm wmwm ‘ mwfiwm $WW’I S.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice N.K. Aqarwal 26-08-2009 Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. 2. The instant petition is directed against the ordar dated 25-03- 2009 passed by the District (fudge, Raipur in Execution Case No.30/2007 whereby and w reunder ieamed District Judge dismissed the appiication filed lby the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 90 ofthe C.P.C. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in execution of decree passed against the petitioner, the Marut Car of the petitioner was attached and ordered to be soid by pubii auction in execution under Order 21 Rule 90 of C.P.C. and proc amation of sale was issued. After completing the formality, the ve icle was auctioned for Rs.96,000I— on 10—02-2009. Thereafter, on 9-02-2009 an application has been i preferred by the petitioner undeg Order 21 Rule 90 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the sale on the g,ound that the proclamation of sate was invalid. The application {Was rejected vide order impugned hence this petition. f : , XI—HC—7E N. (’(xL'Q’) MaszfL/LQ, Wm WWW (Wu) WWW L- r 4. w Shri Rajput, learned cou atnufwa? W‘f &‘ fa“! 2W %&i€?maxr&3r sel for the petitioner would submit that the procedure prescribed i the C.P.C. under order 21 Rule 66 has not been adhered to by the trial Court before auctioning his car and, therefore, order passed b the Court below is patently illegal and deserves to be set aside. 5. After hearing learned co nsel for the petitioner and perusing the record and order‘impugned it is the considered opinion of this Court that the contention raised byvShri Rajput has no merit. ln view of order 21 Rule b0 sub rule (3) no application to set aside a sale under this rule sh ll be entertained upon any ground taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sae was drawn up. Therefore, the ground taken bythe petitioner gas no merit. The trial Court has not committed any illegality or irre ‘ularity leading to manifest injustice so asto invoke extraordinary ju isdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia. 6. which the applicant could ha 7. lt is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction und r Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from 'nterfering with the order passed by l l E 200? L w . w P 0‘3) No «Si L1H: WW mm (W~?¥ mamfga? swam i the Court below, except in suc cases where perversity, megality, irregularity or jurisdictiona! err r is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the prese tcase. 206 ‘‘7 mmiffgé$ww $‘air‘anm ,— - aetition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. In view of the above, the i Sd/- if ‘ e= N.K. Agrawal ‘ Judge