C.R. No. 3451 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3451 of 2005 Date of Decision: 12.10.2009 Ajmer Singh son of Kishan Singh resident of village Sadrabad (Naushehra) Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. Surjit Singh son of Sucha Singh, r/o village Chaunda, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur. 2. Balwinder Singh, adopted son of Jang Singh, son of Sucha Singh, resident of village Chaunda, Tehsil Malerkotla. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. A.G. Garg, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Respondent No. 1, exparte. Service of respondent No. 2, dispensed with. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 04.06.05, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla, vide which, it dismissed the objection-petition under Order 211 Rule 58 C.R. No. 3451 of 2005 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by Ajmer Singh, objector/revision-petitioner. 2. The decree-holder/respondent, got attached the entire share i.e. 6 bighas 5 biswas of land, situated at village Chaunda of the judgement debtor. The land was sold. 3. An objection-petition, was filed, by the objector/revision- petitioner, to the effect, that the alleged auction of the land attached, was held secretly, by Balwinder Kumar, Field Kanugo, in collusion with Surjit Singh, who is the real uncle of the judgement debtor. It was further stated that the Kanugo, auctioned the whole land, measuring 6 bighas 5 biswas, for an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/-. It was further stated that, in fact, the minimum price of the said land, was Rs. 70,000/-, per bigha, and the value of the total land, was not less than Rs. 4 lacs. It was further stated that the judgement debtor, owned no other movable or immovable property, except the said land. It was further stated that Balwinder Kumar, judgement debtor, took a cash loan of Rs. 62,000/-, from the objector, and regarding this, a suit for recovery, was filed. It was further stated that, to evade the payment, to the objector/revision- petitioner, Surjit Singh, real uncle of the judgement debtor, purchased the said land, for a minimum amount of Rs. 1,95,000/-. It was further stated that the auction dated 26.08.04, was the result of conspiracy between Surjit Singh and Field Kanugo, just to defeat the claim of the objector/revision-petitioner, and be set aside. 4. In reply, submitted by the auction purchaser, it was stated, C.R. No. 3451 of 2005 3 that the objector, had made false allegations, in order to cause damage to the auction purchaser. It was further stated that the auction, was conducted openly and so many persons, were present, at that time. It was further stated that nine persons participated, in the auction, and gave the bid. It was further stated that the auction purchaser, gave the highest bid. No person, out of the bidder raised any objection, at the time of the bid, or later on. It was further stated that the objector/revision-petitioner, did not raise any objection, at the time of auction,but only opposed the same, when the sale, had been completed. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going the record of the case,the trial Court, dismissed the objection-petition. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 7. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the sale of the land, was made secretly, in favour of Surjit Singh, real uncle of the judgement debtor, in collusion with the Kanugo. He further submitted that the price of the land, was Rs. 4 lacs, but it was sold, for a meager amount of Rs. 1,95,000/-. He further submitted that, this was done, just with a view to evade the payment to the objector/revision- petitioner, by the judgement debtor. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. C.R. No. 3451 of 2005 4 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. There is nothing, on the record, that Surjit Singh, auction purchaser and the Kanugo, connived with each other, as a result whereof, the auction, was held, wherein, land, measuring 6 bighas 5 biswas, was sold, for an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/-, but, on the other hand, it is evident, from the order of the Court below, that a number of persons participated, in the auction, when it was held openly. The auction purchaser, was the highest bidder, and, as such, auction was made, in his favour. It is a matter of common experience that, in Court sales, the property, is always sold at a minimum price, as the person, purchasing the same always fears, that there being some litigation, with regard to the same, complication may arise, at a later stage. It was not a sale by mutual consent, between the two parties. No document, could be produced, on record, by the revision-petitioner, that the price of the land, which was auctioned, was Rs. 4 lacs. The mere fact, that the land, which was auctioned, fetched lesser price, could not be said to be a material irregularity, warranting the setting aside of the auction. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, no doubt, placed reliance on M/s Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s Asnew Drums (P) Ltd. and others, AIR 1974 (SC), 1331, to contend that, if the land, is sold, in auction, for an inadequate price, that could not be said to be one of the grounds, for setting aside the same. The C.R. No. 3451 of 2005 5 perusal of the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid, case clearly goes to show, that the mere inadequacy of price, could not demolish every Court sale. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, from the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same, is dismissed. 12.10.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE