1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3752 OF 2010 (M/s Wairagade Engineering Corpn. Nagpur) -: VERSUS :- (M/s Bhushan Trading Company & Others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S. P. Kshirsagar Adv for petitioner. Shri Asif Rizwy Adv for respondent 1. Shri Umre Adv for respondent 2. Shri R. R. Verma Adv for respondent 3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 12, 2010. Heard Shri Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rizwy learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Shri Umre learned counsel for respondent no.2 is seeking time. Shri Verma learned counsel for respondent no.3 has also opposed the petition. 2] Contention of Shri Kshirsagar is, without any public notice auction has been conducted and third bid has been accepted in Court. Not only this while accepting third bid time more than prescribed by Order 2 21 Rule 85 Civil Procedure Code has been given to deposit the amount. He has invited attention to objection as filed on 20th July 2010, orders passed below Ex. 1 in S. D. No. 227 of 2008 and a separate order passed on Ex. 59 on the very same day. According to him application under Order 21 Rule 58 has not been decided at all and has been mechanically filed. His contention is after auction valuation report has been called for, auction automatically falls to ground and steps are required to be initiated. 3] Shri Rizwy learned counsel as also Shri Verma have pointed out that application under Order 21 Rule 58 accepts the auction and prays for its cancellation. As the auction was already over and objection raised is to the attachment of the property under Order 21 Rule 58 the executing Court has rightly found that as orders were already passed as per provisions of Order 21 Rule 64 and 66 said application was misconceived. Application was therefore correctly filed. They have further contended that the subsequent orders were not assailed before executing Court by raising any objection at all. 4] Facts show that in application under Order 21 Rule 58 Civil Procedure Code filed by petitioner judgment debtor only show contention that the public auction was conducted on 30th April 2010 and bidders offered certain price, the Court then directed decree holder to submit valuation report, its receipt and fact 3 revealed therein that property subjected to auction was lease hold property and it belonged to Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, judgment debtors therefore contended that property belonging to M. I. D. C. could not have been auctioned. It shows that he therefore urged that auction dated 30th April 2010 needed to be cancelled. Prayer was made accordingly in it. Trial Court has found that as orders as per Order 21 Rule 64 and 66 was already passed, that application was misconceived. There is nothing wrong with the application of mind by executing Court. Not only this because of earlier offers received on 30th April 2010 and valuation report received, subsequent orders have been passed under Rules 64 and 66. Said procedure and proceedings were not objected to by petitioner judgment debtors before executing Court at any point of time. Even subsequent order granting time to deposit balance amount is not assailed before it by moving necessary applications. As there is no jurisdictional error, no case is made out for warranting any interference in the matter. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. JUDGE SVK