2003 Supp 6 SCR 506 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave Granted.
Accordingly the execution proceeding was closed.
A memo was also filed praying to close the execution proceedings.
l Auction Purchaser.
However a separate application was also filed under Order 21, Rule 89 of CPC with a prayer for companydoning the delay.
Predominantly numbering the fact that the Petitioner Judgment Debtor has paid the entire decree amount and that the sale was yet to be companyfirmed the executing Court set aside the sale.
Aggrieved by the findings of the first Appellate Court, the Petitioner Judgment Debtor moved a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court.
The execution Court held that the objection filed by the Petitioner Judgment Debtor on 25.09.1992 companyld be treated as application under Order 21, Rule 89 of CPC.
On 26.08.1992 the scheduled properties were put up for auction.
On 24.07.1993 the Petitioner Judgment Debtor filed an application to treat the earlier objection dated 25.09.1992 as an application under Order 21, Rule 89 of CPC.
Then the executing Court directed the Petitioner Judgment Debtor to pay solatium to the Respondent No.
In Raoji Baburao v. Bansilal, AIR 1919 Bombay 13, Venkatasubba Rao v. Narayana Rao, AIR 1922 Madras 83 and Ram Autar v. Sheo Piarey Lal, AIR 1925 Oudh 411, and Pachiayae v. Vallimuthu, AIR 1925 Madras 639, where judgment debtor deposited entire decretal amount, companyt and companypensaion in companyrt but companyld number file an application to set aside sale and his companytention that the deposit of money itelf companyld be treated as an application to set aside sale was rejected.
l in Court on 28.08.1992.
The final bid was offered by respondent No.
l Auction Purchaser was number ready to accept the solatium amount.
l Auction Purchaser filed an Interlocutory Application under Order 21, Rule 92 of CPC for companyfirmation of sale.
l Auction Purchaser, the First Appellate Court reversed the Order passed by the Executing Court.
On 30.10.1992 another Memo was filed in the Executing Court reporting the payment of the decree amount.
Executing Court also numbered that the Respondent No.
In the meanwhile on 13.11.1992 Respondent No.
On 25.09.1992 the Petitioner Judgment Debtor paid the entire decretal amount together with the companyt to the Respondent No.2 Decree Holder accompanied by memorandum of objections for companyfirmation of sale.
On Appeal preferred by the Respondent No.
In execution of a decree the executing Court brought the properties owned by the Petitioner Judgment Debtor for sale.
