1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1474 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 1474 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 1474 OF 2006 Prabhakant Chandrakant Patel ...Petitioner Versus Ramchandra Laxman Thorat since deceased through his legal heirs & representatives: 1a. Laxman alias Bhaurao Ramchandra Thorat & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. V.S.Gokhale, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.M.Sathaye, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1b, 1c and 1e. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE: 5th December,2008. DATE: 5th December,2008. DATE: 5th December,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Respondent No.2 - Dwarkadas had filed Regular Civil Suit no.52 of 1969 against the original defendant no.1 - Ramchandra Laxman Thorat for recovery of the 2 amount and a decree for recovery of Rs.7,000/- was passed in favour of the plaintiff/decree-holder. That decree was put to execution in Regular Darkhast No.165/1983. The present petitioner was the highest bidder for the property which was put to sale in auction and on 28.4.1995, his bid for rs.40,000/- was accepted. On that day, he deposited Rs.10,000/-. The balance amount was deposited on 16.5.1995. However, on 12.6.1995, the original defendant/judgment debtor filed an application for setting aside the auction sale on the ground of irregularities. On 23.6.1995, he also deposited the decretal amount in the court. On 29.6.1995, he filed another application for setting aside the auction sale raising certain grounds. The objections to the auction sale taken by him were rejected and he preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No.17 of 1999. That appeal was allowed by the appellate Court on 15.3.2001 and the auction sale was set aside. The petitioner/auction purchaser was allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited by him, while the decree-holder was allowed to withdraw the decretal amount of Rs.8,000/- which was deposited by the judgment debtor. Being aggrieved by the said order, the auction purchaser had filed the present petition. 2. There is no dispute that under Order XXI Rule 90 of C.P.C., the auction sale can be set aside on the 3 ground of irregularity or fraud. In the present case, it was a contention of the judgment debtor that there was a material irregularity and lack of application of mind in accepting the bid of the auction purchaser. Admittedly, for recovery of the decretal amount of Rs.8,000/-, 23 hectares and 8 Ares of land was put to auction sale. The learned appellate Court noted that in the notice as well as sale warrant, the value of the property was shown as Rs.10,000/- and price Rs.40,000/- offered by the auction purchaser was accepted. However, on the spot, at the time of auction, a panchnama was prepared by the bailiff in presence of the local panchas wherein approximate value of the property was shown to be Rs.1,50,000/-. It appears that the decree-holder had wrongly shown the value of the property at about Rs.10,000/- while obtaining the warrant for auction sale. As the panchnama was prepared showing the approximate value at Rs.1,50,000/-, all the papers, including the panchnama must have been placed before the concerned Executing Court. The Executing Court should have noted that the market value was around Rs.1,50,000/-, while in the sale warrant, its value was shown just Rs.10,000/- and the property as sold only for Rs.40,000/- which was approximately 25% of the market value of the property. In such circumstances, the Executing Court should have refused to accept the highest bid of the auction 4 purchaser. However, the Executing Court did not take care of this fact and accepted the bid of the auction purchaser. Thus, the property admeasuring more than 23 hectares was sold away for a paltry amount of Rs.40,000/-. 3. Taking into consideration the value of the property, it was not necessary to put the huge property of 23 hectares to sale for recovery of just Rs.8,000/-. From this, it is clear that the decree-holder had misled the Court by showing the market value at Rs.10,000/- and the Executing Court did not apply its mind before accepting the bid even though the panchnama clearly showed that the market value was Rs.1,50,000/-. In my considered opinion, this was a material irregularity in the said auction. The learned appellate Court relied upon several authorities and the facts on record to come to conclusion that there was material irregularity causing prejudice to the judgment debtor. Taking into consideration the circumstances, I find no illegality or material infirmity in the impugned order. 4. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. 5 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)