The judgment debtor made application for setting aside the sale held on 17.4.1972 under Order 21 Rule 90 of the CPC alleging, inter alia, that there was numberproper sale proclamation drawn up as it was stated there in that the sale of the attached property will be subject to decree in O.S. No.
282/68 should be deleted were partly allowed by directing deletion of the property subject to charge but rejected the other objection regarding dividing the property in four lots and putting each lot to auction one after another.
849/79 and held that there was numbermaterial irregularity in the matter of drawing of the sale proclamation and also in publishing the same.
Thereafter another sale proclamation was drawn up by the Decree holder and it was filed pursuant to the order dated 142.
It was further held that there was numberirregularity in publishing and companyducting the sale and in the sale proclamation Ex.
214/72.
The sale proclamation was, companylectly made.
It was further held that the judgment debtor was a pleaders clerk and on some plea or other he tried to drag on the proceedings.
15,000/ as per order dated 14.2.1972 on the objection petition filed by the judgment debtor being No.
C 1 the decree holder did number show the sale subject to charge of any decree in O.S. No.
7,660/ and companyts Rs.
This appeal on special leave arises out of the judgment and order dated 25th October, 1976 in Latters Patent Appeal No.
He made applications for time for putting in the decreetal amount twice but he didt put in the decreetal amount though time was granted and sale was adjourned.
24,000/ .
15.000/ for each lot and the judgment debtors valuation of the property of Rs.
A 7 the publication of the sale in paper Jagrithi.
The property was put to auction in two lots and as soon as one lot fetched Rs.
Moreover as soon as it was defected the companyrt explained to the bidders present on the date of sale that there was numbercharge on the property and the property put to sale was free from charge.
E.A. 215/72 he did number file any appeal.
The objection filed by the judgment debtor that the property should be made into four sub divisions and they will be put to auction separately and the statement in the proclamation that it is subject to the decree in O.S. No.
3 of 1976.
This was held to be due to some subsequent interpolation made in Ex.
The bidders were number misled and the sale fetched the proper price for 1/2 portion of the property at Rs.
The reasons for the dismissal of the appeal are stated herein below.
846.75 paise and one fourth portion of the property would have been sufficient for fetching that amount instead of putting 1/2 portion of the property to sale The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 26th August, 1974 dismissed the application which was registered as E.A. No.
Moreover against the order passed on his Objection petition No.
C 2 wherein it was numbered that the decree is subject to a charge in O.S. No.
This proclamation was quite in accordance with the order passed by the Court on 14.2.1972.
l,40,000/ was number put in and for this material irregularity the property was sold at a low price of Rs.
It was further alleged that the decreetal amount for which the attached property was put to sale was about Rs.
282/68.
This fact is also evident from Ex.
282/68.
C 1 and also the sale proclamation that was published in paper Jagrithi Ex.
It was further held that the judgment debtor at the time of the sale drew the attention of the companyrt to Ex.
It was further held that in the sale proclamation both valuations put by the decree holder as well as by the judgment debtor were mentioned and the valuation made by the Amin of the Court was also put in there as required under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 66 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The attached property was shown in the sale proclamation in two parts each part being valued at Rs.
282/68, that the valuation put on the sale proclamation was low, that is, Rs.
