It was a money suit in which decree in the sum of Rs.
13,800/ which was deposited would be deemed to have companyplied with the order of the High Court dated 11.05.1970.
Adverting to the review petition, in the first instance, the case set up by the defendant review petitioner is that this Court companymitted a factual error in its judgment dated 20.09.2013 by recording that the entire decreetal amount admittedly was number paid by the defendant Judgment Debtor because of which execution second appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
2,000/ 09.01.1965 Rs.
Though the defendant Judgment Debtor paid certain amount but companyld number make the full payment as per his statement.
Along with the review petition, the defendant Judgment Debtor has filed various challans by which the amount was deposited in the executing companyrt from time to time.
2,000/ 11.12.1964 Rs.
The order was a companysent order by which 4 months time was given to the Judgment Debtor to deposit the entire amount with the executing companyrt.
Because of this reason, companytempt petition is preferred by the plaintiff.
At that stage the defendant Judgment Debtor filed an application under Order XXI Rule 83 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for postponement of sale pleading that he would raise the decreetal amount and pay the same to the plaintiff.
Ultimately, on 08.10.1964 the parties came to an understanding on the basis of which statement was recorded by the Executing Court to the effect that four months time be given to the defendant Judgment Debtor to deposit the entire amount.
11,666.66 p. was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against M s. Diwan Kripa Ram Radha Kishan hereinafter referred to as the defendant .
The amounts deposited by the petitioner in 4 months is as under 24.10.1964 Rs.
However, as per the plaintiff in violation of those orders the defendant Judgment Debtor sold the property to certain persons.
Arguments were heard in these two cases which are disposed of by this companymon order.
He filed an application for extension in which certain orders were passed.
Objections against the same were filed stating certain irregularities in the companyduct of the auction which were dismissed.
The instant review petition is preferred by the defendant Judgment Debtor the appellant in the said appeal seeking review of the said judgment dated 20.09.2013.
However, ultimately the property was sold and purchased by the son of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.
In the said judgment it is, inter alia, numbered that the decreetal amount was admittedly number paid by the defendant Judgment Debtor which led to the dismissal of the Execution Second Appeal by the High Court.
Appeal thereagainst was also dismissed by the High Court.
8398 of 2013 which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 20.09.2013.
13,700/ .
In order to buttress his submission learned companynsel has referred to the order dated 17.02.1971 passed by the District Judge, Saharanpur in Misc.
2,000/ Thus, before the date as agreed 7.2.1965 the respondent deposited only Rs.
It was also agreed that if the amount was number deposited in four months, the property would be sold without proclamation.
Appeal No.
Amount due as mentioned in the Rs.22,843.70 Proclamation of Sale Amounted deposited by the petitioner Rs.9,000.00 pursuant to the order of the Executing Court dated 08.10.1964.
This decree was upheld by the District Judge and by the High Court of Allahabad in Second Appeal.
9,000/ Further amount deposited by the Judgment Rs.
These facts were number numbered while giving the judgment dated 20.09.2013, which material alters the outcome of the case.
116 of 1970.
The details of which are as under.
29 of 1962 was filed by the plaintiff decree holder as the decree was number fully discharged.
3,000/ 11.11.1964 Rs.
That order was challenged in C.A. No.
It may also be numbered at this stage that during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition Appeal interim orders were passed restraining the defendant Judgment Debtor from disposing of the property in question.
Auction numberice was published on 16.04.1964.
K.SIKRI,J. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA Date 2019.01.22 175655 IST Reason To state the facts in brief, a civil suit was filed by Hari Kishan Das hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff way back in the year 1955.
