IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 30.08.2010 C.R.No.6657 of 2006 (O&M) Mukhtiar Singh (Dead) through his LRs ...Petitioners Versus Gurmail Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 29.09.2006, whereby the objections filed by the judgment debtor (respondent herein) under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC were accepted and the learned trial Court was directed to conduct the sale proceedings afresh. The suit filed by the present petitioner for the recovery of ` 5,16,000/- i.e. ` 3,00,000/- as principal amount and ` 2,16,000/- as interest, was decreed by the learned Civil Court on 13.11.1998. A decree for recovery of the aforesaid amount was granted in favour of the petitioner with further condition that the amount be payable in six installments i.e. five installments of ` 1,00,000/- each and sixth installment of remaining entire amount. Since, the decreetal amount was not deposited, the petitioner took up the execution. In the said execution, the decree-holder was permitted to participate in auction proceedings vide order dated 06.08.2003. The auction C.R.No.6657 of 2006 (O&M) of land measuring 11 bighas 8 biswas was conducted on 04.04.2004 and the decree holder was found highest bidder in the sum of ` 7,02,000/-. On 17.05.2004, the petitioner objected to the conduct of such sale in an objection petition. In the said petition, the judgment debtor, inter alia, took up a stand that no notice under Order 21 Rule 66 PC was served upon the judgment debtor and that details of land including encumbrances thereon, extent of land is sufficient to satisfy the decree, was not mentioned therein. It is pointed out that since the market value of disputed land is not less than ` 1,00,000/- per bigha, therefore, the decree holder could recover the decreetal amount by attaching about 5 or 6 bighas of land of the judgment debtor. Therefore, sale of the entire land suffers from irregularity in the conduct of sale and is fraud on the rights of the petitioner. In reply to the said objections, the petitioner denied all the allegations. After considering the reply, the Executing Court dismissed the objections on 30.03.2005. The Executing Court found that the judgment debtor was given notice under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC, which is evident from the order dated 4.11.2000. Munadi was again effected on 15.04.2003, but none has put in appearance on behalf of the judgment debtor and, therefore, the property has been rightly put to auction. The learned first Appellate Court examined the record and returned a finding that the Executing Court was supposed to fix tentative price of the land and also to examine how much land is required to be put to auction for effecting recovery. In the present case, the entire property of the judgment debtor, the price of which is more than decreetal amount, was attached and put to auction, which led to inference that firstly in such a situation less price is paid as the proceedings are conducted clandestinely. It was also held that notice under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was not proper. 2 C.R.No.6657 of 2006 (O&M) The Court was bound to ensure that the auction is being made as per law and that the Executing Court has not taken into consideration the auction proceedings. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC has been reproduced by the learned first Appellate Court. A perusal thereof shows that the decree holder has not disclosed the tentative value of the land or the fact that the entire land is required to be put to auction to satisfy the claim of the decree holder. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court holding that the terms of sale as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC were not settled in terms of the provisions of the Code. Another fact, which is relevant is that after the order was passed by the learned first Appellate Court, the judgment debtor has deposited the entire decreetal amount amounting to ` 6,45,700/- including future interest on 7.11.2006. The petitioner is the decree holder-auction purchaser. The interest of the decree holder is fully protected when the amount of decree is deposited. There are no special equities in favour of the petitioner in respect of sale of the property so as to deprive the respondent of his land. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 30.08.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3