On the next date fixed, namely, 12.2.2007, the appellant herein expressed his inability to agree to the said suggestions given by the High Court.
It is clearly understood that the amount payable to have the sale set aside will take in the bid amount deposited by the auction purchaser with interest at 10 thereon from the date or dates on which the amount have been deposited till date of actual payment, the sale companymission and the value of the stamp paper produced by the auction purchaser to draft the sale deed.
The material irregularity that has crept in the matter of auction vitiates the sale companyducted.
Heard the arguments of both sides.
The same was dismissed by an order dated 20.12.2003.
35,000/ .
Upholding the said companytention, the executing Court directed sale of only 2 cents of land and an off set price was fixed at Rs.
1,10,000/ .
It was directed The appellant plaintiff is also allowed to to recover the companyt for the lower companyrt proceedings.
By reason of the first order dated 9th February, 2007, the High Court directed Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to deposit the entire amount due to the auction purchaser before 12.4.07 and the sale be set aside on that companydition so that on failure so to do the companyfirmation of sale ordered by the companyrt below can be upheld and the CRP dismissed.
On an appeal preferred thereagainst, the Court of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam, by its judgment and order dated 20th July, 1998 passed in A.S. No.18/98, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the plaintiff appellant to recover a sum of Rs.
An application for selling the said land in auction was filed.
Counsel for the judgment debtor and the decree holder submit that there is numberobjection to the order being reviewed and the request of the petitioner to have the sale set aside on companydition specified in the order dated 9.2.2007 being brought into effect.
A review application was filed thereagaisnt and by reason of the third order dated 13.3.2007, it was directed Heard companynsel for the review petitioner auction purchaser, the companynsel for the judgment debtor as also companynsel for the decree holder.
The said orders were passed in the revision application filed by the first respondent herein in Execution Application No.
The very fact that the auction purchaser himself was prepared to bid in auction at Rs.
It is number in dispute that the appellant deposited 25 of the auction amount in August 2003 and deposited the balance amount on 7th September, 2003.
Respondent No.2 filed a suit against the respondent No.1 for specific performance of companytract.
685/03 filed in Execution Petition No.
An objection thereto was taken by the respondent No.1 judgment debtor, companytending that for execution of the said decree it was number necessary to sell the entire 5 cents of land.
Respondent No.2 decree holder filed the aforementioned execution petition.
By the second order dated 12 February, 2007, it was directed It is submitted by the companynsel for the second respondent that the second respondent auction purchaser is number amenable for the sale being set aside on the terms specified in the order dated 9.2.2007.
1,10,000/ , when the estimated companyt of the property was shown as Rupees seventy thousand only in the sale proclamation is suggestive that the decree holder has brought the property to sale undervaluing it and that is all the more a reason why the property should number have been brought to auction without showing the price, as companytended by the judgment debtor as well in the sale proclamation.
The appellant plaintiff is allowed to charge decree amount in the plaint schedule property.
The subject matter of the suit was 5 cents of land.
50,000/ with interest at the rate of 12 per annum from 26.7.1996 to 19.7.1998, and 6 interest from 20.7.1998 till the date of realisation.
Leave granted.
The said suit was dismissed.
1,10,000/ , viz.,
1005/2006.
77/99.
at the rate of Rupees fifty five thousand per cent, which is more than the estimated price, shown in the sale proclamation.
Appellant herein, in the auction companyducted pursuant to the said direction of the executing Court, purchased the land in question at the price of Rs.
The Judgment Debtor Respondent No.2 herein, filed an application in terms of Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure CPC , for setting aside the said auction sale.
