Under the teeth of the mandatory language of Order XXI, Rule 72, CPC, he has numberright to bid in the auction without obtaining prior permission of the Court.
plot Nos.24 and 25 of admeasuring 33 decimals totalling 1 acre 52 1/2 decimals was brought to sale to realise the decreetal amount of Rs.10,921 50.
Since there was numberfurther offer made by anybody thereafter out of the five participants in the bid, the bid was knocked down in favour of the decree holder respondent.
The same came to be questioned by filing of an objection under Order XXI, Rule 90, CPC which was dismissed by the companyrt below and upheld by the High Court.
The respondent filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement, which relief ultimately was refused but a decree for refund of the earnest money was granted.
As a companysequence, the sale companyducted was clearly in flagrant violation of Order XXI, Rule 72, CPC.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, made on November 9, 1995 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.2680/89.
The admitted position is that the plaintiff respondent had entered into an agreement with the appellant to purchase 43 decimals of land in plot No.389/2 situated in Umraha, District Varanasi for a sum of Rs.6625/ .
A sum of Rs.2000/ was paid as earnest amount while the balance amount has already been paid in the form of loan.
It is also to be seen that the sale was companyducted without there being any proper numberice and publicity as is evident from the report submitted by the Court Amin.
Since the amount was number paid, the respondent had brought the properties of the appellant, to the extent of one acre, 52 1/2 decimals to sale.
It is number in dispute that the land, viz.,
Leave granted.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
