4/ judgment debtor has filed the application requesting the executing companyrt to intimate the amount to be deposited so that he companyld file application under Order 21 Rule 89 of CPC.
The Executing Court had directed the judgment debtors to pay this amount which was to be paid by 11.11.92.
1.14 lakhs.
Though this application was rejected, the order of the executing companyrt was set aside by the High Court allowing the revision of the judgment debtor and directing the executing companyrt to intimate the same to the judgment debtor.
After receiving the order, aforesaid order of the High Court, the Executing Court gave the direction to the Shristadar to submit a report of the calculation of the amount.
This revision petition is decided by the impugned order passed on 8.6.2004.
8,00,000/ which was sold for a partly amount of Rs.
The High Court even granted stay of the impugned order initially.
However, ultimately on 7.7.1990, the property namely 11 Cottahs of land with a two storied pukka building situated at 46 and 48, R.K. Chatterjee Road, Kasba, Calcutta was put to auction and the petitioners were the highest bidders therein with the bid of Rs.
1.14 lakhs which turned out to be wrong calculations, in as much as the High Court set aside the said order and on re calculation, the amount payable was calculated at Rs.
An ex parte decree was passed on 23.12.1967 against Respondent Nos.
In the meantime, on 12.11.1990, the petitioner deposited entire purchase money and sale certificate was issued in their favour by the Executing Court.
The judgment debtors filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed and appeals thereagainst were also dismissed.
The learned executing Court is directed to take steps to dispose of the matter expeditiously since the same has been pending for a long time.
Against this order, Revision Petition was filed before the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
On 9.11.1990, it was registered as C.O. 3515/1990.
1.14 lakhs.
Before the High Court, the petitioner or the decree holder did number appear despite services of numberice.
It was also pleaded that as the judgment debtors companyld number obtain particulars of the auction sale through their lawyers, they companyld number file an application under Order 21 Rule 89 of C.P.C. for depositing the requisite amount in the execution case and get the sale set aside.
Execution Case was filed on 24.9.1970 by the decree holder.
1.5 lakhs.
6,600/ companyld number become Rs.
In sum and substance the position which emerges on the auction of the property in question can be summarised as below The property was put up on auction on July, 1970 and the bid of the petitioner in a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs was the highest.
1.14 lakhs even after adding interest etc.
Bimala Bala Sen, since deceased hereinafter to be referred as the decree holder for a sum of Rs.
In the first instance, the amount calculated was Rs.
The High Court vide orders dated 22.9.1992 set aside this order of the Execution Court as well on the ground that calculations were wrong.
On companying to know of the auction sale, they moved the application for ascertaining the dues for the purpose of filing application under Order 21 Rule 89 of the C.P.C. But the Executing Court instead of giving information put the said application to a future date i.e. on 8.8.1990 and thereafter dismissed the same.
The Executing Court even gave opportunity to the judgment debtors to deposit decretal amount.
20 of 1965 was instituted by one Smt.
The facts which needs to be traversed for this purpose are recapitulated below Way back in the year 1965, a money suit No.
37,500/ .
6,100/ money claimed Rs.
Fresh calculations were made by Shristadar on 24.9.1992 significantly reducing the amount due under decree to Rs.
In addition to the above, the executing companyrt shall make over to the judgment debtors the stamps purchased by the auction purchaser for the purpose of the sale certificate so that the amount of the stamps may be recorded by the judgment debtor in accordance with the provisions of section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
The learned executing companyrt shall pass an order of the basis whereof the judgment debtor would be entitled to receive back the amount of the stamp duty although the same had been purchased in the name of the auction purchaser who will be entitled to receive back the cash value thereof.
The auction sale was companyfirmed on 9.7.1990.
This decree was in the sum of Rs.
42,055.87/ .
The Respondent No.
In this execution proceedings, some objections were filed by the judgment debtors.
On 9.7.1990, auction sale was companyfirmed.
Direction was given to the Court to determine the amount to be deposited by the applicant judgment debtor and then permitting him to deposit the amount as per order passed, according to law.
The petitioner deposited poundage fee alongwith challan of one fourth of the bid amount i.e. Rs.
This decree thus, became final.
42055.87/ from earlier calculation of Rs.
Directions were given to the Executing Court to make the calculation afresh.
On these grounds, the order of the Executing Court was set aside with direction that the Court below should proceed from the stage when the application for determination of the amount to be deposited was filed on 10.7.1990.
Under Order 21 Rule 89 C.P.C., a chance is given to the applicant to deposit the amount payable including 5 percent for the successful auction purchases and on deposit of that amount the Executing Court will set aside the sale on 10.7.1990 itself.
This revision petition kept pending for quite some time and is ultimately decided by the impugned order only on 8.6.2004.
1 to 4, 6 and 7 herein hereinafter to be referred as the judgment debtors .
However, before that the judgment debtor filed another revision petition.
The revision petition of the judgment debtors C.O. 3515/1990 was finally heard by the High Court and allowed on 10.4.1992.
He, accordingly gave his report stating that the judgment debtors had to pay a sum of Rs.
6,600/ Rs.
This order was also challenged by the judgment debtors by approaching the High Court by means of a revision petition questioning the calculations.
6,100/ , being refund of earnest money.
On that very day, the trial companyrt directed the judgment debtors to deposit the said amount by November 1992.
High Court numbered that the calculations are companyrectly arrived at.
Direction was given to the JDs to deposit the amount.
This petition was however, rejected by the Executing Court on 8.8.1990.
The High Court in the said order numbered the submission of the judgment debtors to the effect that at the time of auction of the property value thereof was more than Rs.
1.5 lakhs.
4 herein filed an application in the execution case for intimation as to how the decreetal amount be deposited.
500/ as companyt .
On the very next day, one of the judgment debtors namely Respondent No.
This order was challenged by the judgment debtors questioning the calculations made and submitted that decretal amount of Rs.
