By the impugned judgement, the High Court disposed of the Second appeal and the cross objection filed by the parties, inter alia, holding that the judgement debtors respondents were entitled for the restitution of possession of the property purchased by the appellant in auction in execution proceeding and also for a sum of Rs.20,309/ from the auction purchaser appellant by way of damages and mesne profits subject to payment of Rs.8,000/ by the said judgement debtors to the auction purchaser.
After the remand, auction purchaser filed objection to the judgement debtors application for restitution, inter alia, companytending that the auction purchaser was entitled number only to the payment of Rs.8,000/ being the sale price but also Rs.17,254/ and odd which the auction purchaser had deposited to prevent further sale of the said property in execution of another decree passed against the judgement debtors.
The judgement debtors and auction purchaser both filed appeal and cross objections before the High Court and the impugned judgement has been passed in such proceeding.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing, Mr.Mehrotra, the learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondents, took a preliminary objection that the decree passed by the High Court in the restitution application which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal, cannot be maintained in the absence of some of the judgement debtors whose names were deleted at the risk of the appellant.
After such auction purchase, the property was again put to auction in execution of the another money decree obtained by a different decree holder and the judgement debtor in order to save the property had put the decretal amount in order to avoid further sale in execution of the said decree.
Such application was opposed but ultimately the order of restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure was passed in favour of the judgement debtors.
The restitution application was allowed and the executing companyrt directed for delivery of possession of the disputed property to the judgement debtors together with a sum of Rs.65,565/ on account purchaser appellant.
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Allahabad High Court on April 17,1980 in Second Appeal No.2269/1968 being companynected with Second Appeal No.
Both the appeals were disposed of by the Civil Judge allowed the appeal of the auction purchaser and directed that the judgement debtors should pay Rs.8,000/ along with interest which companyes to Rs.22,400/ and also a sum of Rs.19,723/ and odd but numberdirection was given for payment of interest on the aforesaid amount.
It may be stated here that the appellant purchased the property belonging to the predecessor in interest of the judgement debtors in auction in execution of money decree passed against the judgement debtors.
An appeal was taken by the appellant auction purchaser against such order and the appeal was allowed by order dated October 31, 1952 and the case was remanded .
The auction purchaser also claimed Rs.3500/ as companyt of repairs and Rs.50/ per annum for such repairs since 1942.
The said judgement debtors jointly obtained the said decree holders, numbereffective order can be passed in this appeal.
Subsequently, a further order was passed by this Court directing that the attention of the Court should be drawn about such deletion and companysequences flowing therefrom.
During the pendency of this appeal, unfortunately, at the instance of the appellant, the names of the respondent 1/2, 2/1 and 2/2 being heirs of one of the judgement debtors were deleted from the array of parties at the risk of the appellant.
An application for restitution of the said property was made by the judgement debtors.
Being aggrieved by such order of the executing companyrt, the auction purchaser appellant preferred an appeal and the judgement debtors also filed appeal against the said order.
Therefore, if any order is passed by the High Court the same will bring inconsistent position vis a vis the respondents on record and decree holders number on record.
The decree obtained by the judgement debtors is a joint decree and number divisible.
2270/1968.
The appeal of the judgement debtors was dismissed.
