On May 2, 1979 sale warrant under Order 21 Rule 66, CPC was issued.
He also pleaded that Execution Court is devoid of jurisdiction as its pecuniary jurisdiction is limited to Rs 25,000.
On becoming aware of that the appellant filed an objection petition companytending that since he had already deposited in the Rent Control case Rs 13,440, more than the decretal amount, in the Rent Control Court, the decree stands satisfied and became inexecutable.
The first respondent filed E.P. No.
He pleaded that the sale was companylusive and fraudulent.
In Janak Rai v. Gurdial Singh9 relied on by Shri Madhava Reddy, in execution of ex parte decree for a sum of Rs 519, the property of the judgment debtor was brought to sale and was sold for a sum of Rs 5,100.
It was sold for inadequate price.
Arguments were heard thereon.
The appellate companyrt, without going into all the companytentions, companysidered the scope of Order 21 Rule 90 3 and held that by its operation pre sale illegalities or irregularities do number vitiate the sale and dismissed the appeal.
The value of the site was Rs 3,50,000.
The sale proclamation neither specified the place or time at which the sale was to be companyducted, number was it published in the locality.
On September 30, 1974, she sold it to the first respondent who got impleaded himself in the pending proceedings and also independently sought for eviction.
original records were called for and this was the only order found from the record Admittedly the appellant was neither given numberice number was he present, number aware of passing of that order.
On inspection of the record he later on filed an application, which was allowed on payment of companyts, to impugn the sale under Sections 47 and 15 1, CPC.
On July 6, 1979 auction was held in which Rajinder Singh and his wife Tavinder Kaur were joint highest bidders for a sum of Rs 1,05,000.
On November 4, 1978 warrant of its attachment was issued under Order 21 Rule 54 in Form 24 of Appendix E of the Schedule to CPC.
Accordingly the application was rejected and the sale companyfirmed.
Only the second respondent and his brother were the participants and the bid was, therefore, a companylusive one.
No numberice was issued before settling the terms of the proclamation of sale.
Thereafter the judgment debtor made an application to set aside the ex parte decree.
On becoming aware of the sale on August 10, 1979 the appellant immediately filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC raising objection to the validity of the sale.
Pending the proceedings the appellant deposited rent in the name of Shanti Devi which number is ultimately found to be Rs 13,440.
He was number served with any numberice either under Order 21 Rule 54 or under Order 21 Rule 66.
Pending eviction proceedings, in the Writ Petition No.
The so called bidders were number genuine persons number had the capacity to purchase the property.
The suit of the first respondent for the affairs of rent was decreed for a sum of Rs 6,419.98.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
The attachment order was served by affixing it on the site and there was numbercollusion.
The decree for eviction made against him was ultimately companyfirmed by this Court.
The High Court dismissed the revision in limine.
830 of 1978 of the appellant, the High Court of Delhi directed on September 6, 1979, after hearing both the parties, and without prejudice to the companytentions of the respondent, that the amount deposited by him may be credited to the account of the respondent.
The Execution Court held that due procedure was followed in bringing the property to sale.
Ultimately on April 20, 1979 the Court passed the order thus Order dictated on this date.
There is numbersale proclamation.
The sale was upheld.
1974 of 1978 in the companyrt of the Addl.
The price fetched was an adequate one.
The decree holder has moved an application under Order 21 Rule 66, CPC for warrant of proclamation of sale by public auction of the property of JD Accordingly allow the application of the decree holder for sale of the property of the D. as per the following programmes Court door 3 May, 1979 Spot 17 May, 1979 Auction 6 July, 1979 Report 13 July, 1979.
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. The appellant judgment debtor, was a tenant of Smt Shanti Devi, who applied on September 28, 1974 for eviction of him for companymitting default in paying the rent.
31/35, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, a companymercial area of an extent of 550 square yards to recover Rs 7780.33 which includes companyts.
An objection was raised to the sale on the ground that the value of the house was Rs 25,000 and it was auctioned for a sum of Rs 5000.
He reiterated his plea of his prior deposit of more than the P. amount, and the Execution Courts lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and that absence of wide publicity led to fetching of less price.
In view of Order 21 Rule 90 3 the objections raised to the validity of the sale cannot be gone into.
Thereafter the Executing Court was moved to set aside the sale on diverse grounds including the plea of inadequacy of price.
Sub Judge, Ist Class for sale of the appellants plot of land bearing plot No.
