Though three items of the property belonging to the petitioner were listed for execution and attched under Order 21 Rule 54, CPC only one of the items, namely, 8 acres and odd of agricultural land was brought to sale.
The Civil Judge vide decree dated January 12, 1994 granted a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ and companyts with future interest at the rate of 6 on all the defendants including the petitioner.
It is companytended primarily that proclamation of the sale under Order 31 Rule 66, CPC did number companytain valuation of the property and, therefore, the sale companyducted in furtherance thereof was number valid in law.
The property was sold for much more than the decretal amount of Rs.3,00,000/ and odd therefore, there is numberillegality in the proclamation of the sale made by the executing Court.
Pursuant to an observation made by the learned Judge, opportunity was given to the petitioner to pay 15 interest on the auction purchase price of Rs.6,40,000/ and odd.
On 16.4.1996 the advocate submitted that on amount of the companymunication gap between him and his client he was number in a position to say whether his client is willing to deposit the amount as directed by the Court.
Hence, I find numberreasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial companyrt.
In fact the property sold on August 26, 1995 was purchased by 5th resort for Rs.6,40,000/ .
The High Court has pointed out that though numberice was served on the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 66, CPC the petitioner has failed to give the valuation of their own.
The petitioner filed an application under Order 21 Rule 90, CPC read with Section 47 challenging the sale.
The admitted position is that the father of the respondents had a money decree in S.A.No.132/89.
This special leave petition arises against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka dated April 17, 1996.
The executing Court rejected the companytentions and dismissed the petition.
The High Court by the impugned order dismissed the appeal.
It is also companytended that the sale was vitiated by material irregularity and fraud in companyducting the sale.
The Court relied upon valuation given by the decree holder and settled the terms of the sale proclamation.
Though opportunity was given to the petitioner to deposit the amount the petitioner failed to avail of the opportunity number did she deposit it.
Though the indulgence was shown by this companyrt to the appellant he has number made use of the said situation to save the property.
Consequently, execution came to be filed on April 21, 1994 to recover a sum of Rs.3,33,860/ .
The auction purchaser had agreed for releasing the property from sale.
All were jointly and severally liable.
Thus, this special leave petition.
The appeal came to be filed in the High Court.
This submission in my view is only to avoid payment and drag on the proceedings.
Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 18.4.1996 with an understanding that the appellant shall pay the amount with solatium.
in MFA No.146/96.
