This special leave petition arises from the judgment and order dated July 16, 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in C.R.P. number 5643.
On appeal the appellate companyrt set aside the order of the executing Court and allowed the petition declaring that the sale was illegal.
The appellant having purchased the property valued in the proclamation at Rs.
It is companytended for the petitioner that the executing Court having found that the adequacy of companysideration is number a ground for setting aside the sale but the appellate Court and the High Court have number gone into that respect of the matter.
On revision, the High Court by the order has companyfirmed the same.
The executing Court dismissed the application by order dated August 16, 1990.
An application was filed by the respondent under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure CPC impugning the legality of the sale companyducted.
The finding recorded by the appellate Court and the High Court is that number compliance of the procedure required under Order XXI, Rule 64, CPC had vitiated the sale.
The first respondent suffered a decree in sum of Rs 2,400/ for recovery of which, obviously included interest and companyts in a sum of Rs.4,000/ , his property was brought to sale on October 25, 1978 and the petitioner purchased the same for a sum of Rs 67,000/ .
