u ••.^'t^ei^" ^ ^i^'"""" ^:^"~ -^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH Sngfe Bencff MISC. APPEAL N0. '774 \ OF 2006 APPELLANT/ AUCTION PURCHASER RESPONDENT/ ^ECREE HOLDER RESPONDENTS/ JUDGMENT DEBTORS Gautam Chopda, S/o Ratan Lal Chopda, R/o Dhamtari, Tehsil & District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh). Versus ^l. State Bank of India, Through its Branch Manager, Dhamtari, Tehsil & District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh). Raj Sethia, W/o Inder Chand Sethia, R/o Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari, Tehsil & District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh). 3.,. Prakash Chand Jain, S/o Panchulal Jain, R/o Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari, Tehsil & District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh). 4.^ Inder Chand Sethia, S/o Champalal, R/o Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari, Tehsil & District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh). ^^-u" MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1 (i) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ~A7F :~-r- XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T f^'TT^T^Ti^r '^'RWHft^T <L. ^ST -^qpTR^f. ^iWS. 1^1^ 3ff^T ^W^ ^^^0, 3^/ WR^IT^W^ "W[. 200 6 '^^?* ^TI^T ^^TI^R ^T^T 10.3.2006 Shri H.S. Patel, counsel j^>r fhe appellant Heaxd on admission, This appeal fited uiider been directed against tiie oxdejr, Additioiaal Distdct Judge, judgaient debtors/ rcspondent^ offhe C.P.C., for setting aside t|te 0ider43 Rule l(J)oftfae C.P.C., has oide^.dated 13/01/2006 passed by the Dhajmtari wheret>y applicatton filed by AppeUant is an auctton] auction .proceedings conduc| proceedings of Cwfl Suit N4 piDperty m auction sale. To debtora filed aa application Leanied Court below vide mip4 axid set aside fhe sale. Admittedty, fhe appMcal|io: aad neeessaiy aiiiount judgEBLent/debtors has also be€|a Onfy gnevance of fhe filed at fhe ttDie of sale, applicatipn was not liable to b^ C.P.C., prescribes filing of fhereafker wifh conditions •^RfeT^rwrof-9 fezt T^CTT ^-sti^Hsn^r No.2 to4 under Oider21 Rule 89 auction sale has been aUowed. jpurchaserwMo participated ia fhe ^ed by fhe Court ia execution 17-A/1992 and purchased the ^et aside the auction saSs judginent mlder Order 21 Rule 89 ofthe C.P.C. order accepted tihie appMcation mip4gned l|ioii has been filed withm 60 days ^equired to be deposited by deposited wifhia tliat period. aiipellant is that appUcatiori was not jTherefore, auction sale on instant set aside. Order 21 Rule 89 offhe 4ppUcatfon at fhe tiime of sale or of depositiag ia Court 5% of Uiat T XI-HC-2^ 3??^T'^T wicb ^nt^ ^RW^H \'^~ KVR ^ ?1 'W^s ^li^M^, ^^FIS, 1^R?y 'fV) ^ A^ - .'WT?WW^iT%' •39( 'i^^y' "^ 20®C ^i^r ^T^T^: ^fN a- piirchase money asid fhe amjount holder. Under Order 21 Rule fhe amount is 60 days or as filiog application time litnit is 6p Herc ia the iastaiit case,| ^Prfo^ ^TR^f-?^t Tf^R ^^rf^an^i due for payment to decree offhe C.P,C., time for depositmg by fhe Court fhat meaas for days. ^2 exttended wifhiii prescribed period necessary aaiouxit has been deposited a^id application to set aside the sale has been filed fhiereforc, leanie^ Coiirt b;elow corneclty accepted ftie application and set aside fhe s^Le. No iaterfereace is called fhe appeal is suiiuaiarily 406/2006 and I.A. No. (br m fhe impugn.ed order, fhercforc, o dusn|iss«l. Consequenfly M.fC^.P. No. staad dispos^djrf^^ 958/20p6 Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge [Tft^^fe4