C.R. No.8099 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.8099 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 13.12.2010 Smt. Navroop .....Petitioner Versus State Bank of Patiala and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. R. C. Setia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Ranjan, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.31672-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.31673-CII of 2010 The application is allowed and Annexure P-1 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. CM No.31674-CII of 2010 This is application for impleading legal representatives of judgment debtor-Om Parkash since deceased. It is alleged in the application that judgment debtor-Om Parkash has left behind widow, two sons and Smt. Ranjana Arora mentioned in paragraph 4 of the application as his legal representatives. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Ranjana Arora is daughter of JD-Om Parkash. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly, the application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and persons mentioned in paragraph 4 of the application are ordered to be impleaded as legal representatives of JD-Om Parkash since deceased, for the purpose of this revision petition. C.R. No.8099 of 2010 (O & M) -2- Necessary correction in the title of the revision petition be made by the office. Main Case. Smt. Navroop-judgment debtor No.3 having failed in both the Courts below has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Suit filed by respondent No.1-State Bank of Patiala against respondent Nos.2 and 3 (principal debtors) and the petitioner as guarantor was decreed. Respondent No.1-decree-holder filed execution petition wherein property belonging to the petitioner JD No.3 was auctioned. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein are the auction purchasers. Petitioner filed objections against the said auction sale of her property. The petitioner alleged that the sale suffers from material irregularities and fraud. The property has been sold for grossly inadequate price at Rs.15000/- to Rs.20000/- per marla as against market price of Rs.45000/- per marla. Construction and covered area etc. have been ignored while conducting the auction. No reserve or upset price was fixed and depicted in sale proclamation. The sale was not given wide publicity. It was also not determined as to how much property was sufficient to recover the decretal amount. No munadi was effected at the spot. Location of property and place and time of auction were also not mentioned. Respondent No.1-DH controverted the objections of the petitioner JD No.3. It was alleged that objection petition has been filed to only delay the execution petition. The property has been sold at prevalent market price. There is no illegality in drawing the sale proclamation which was duly published and Munadi was also effected at the spot. Auction purchasers also contested the objections. C.R. No.8099 of 2010 (O & M) -3- Learned Executing Court i.e learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar vide impugned order dated 15.09.2007 dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioner. Appeal preferred against the said order by the petitioner has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide impugned judgment dated 26.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved, JD No.3-petitioner has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the aforesaid orders of the Courts below. I have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Objections regarding irregularity in sale can be taken by resorting to Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC), but the objections which could be taken up before the sale was effected cannot be raised by way of such objection petition in view of Sub-Rule (3) of Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. The petitioner failed to substantiate her objections that the sale proclamation was not duly published. As regards sale of part of the property, learned counsel for the petitioner states that entire decretal amount has not been recovered by sale of the property in question. Consequently, question of sale of part of the property did not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that under Order 21 Rule 85 CPC, the auction purchasers were required to deposit the balance 75% of the auction money before the Court closed on 15th day from the sale of the property, but it was not so deposited as the auction took place on 19.10.2005 whereas the balance amount was deposited on 09.11.2005 and, therefore, the sale became null and void. Reliance in support of this contention has been C.R. No.8099 of 2010 (O & M) -4- placed on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manilal Maohanlal Shah and others versus Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad and another, AIR 1954 Supreme Court 349 and in the case of Arvind Singh versus Union of India and another, 2010-4 PLR 85. It was contended that provision of Order 21 Rule 85 CPC is mandatory and period of 15 days to deposit balance auction money cannot be extended. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but the same does not help the petitioner. There is no quarrel with the legal proposition advanced by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner at the bar. However, the said contention cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner in the absence of any factual foundation for applicability of the said legal proposition. No such objection was raised before the Courts below that the balance 75% auction money was not deposited within the stipulated period of 15 days. Consequently, this contention cannot be raised for the first time in revision petition without there being any pleading in the objection petition. Accordingly, the contention is rejected. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the Courts below. The instant revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. 13.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE