IMPORTANT POINT
When the Court was inclined to bring the property to sale, the endeavour of the Court should be to sustain the Court sale and equally, though Court sale is compulsive sale, equal endeavour should be made to fetch adequate price for the property sold so that the decree debt would get satisfied and surplus, if any, could be paid over to the judgment debtor.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court made on October 24, 1990 in OSA No. 148/82. The first respondent-Bank laid the suit for the recovery of mortgage amount by sale of 44 acres of land out of 80 acres belonging to respondents 2, 3 and 7 in this appeal. Pending suit, respondents 2 and 3 were adjudged as insolvents in I.P. No. 15/1978. In consequence, their right, title and interest held in the land stood vested in the official assignee, the 4th respondent in this Court. In insolvency proceedings, the High Court by order dated July 18, 1979 directed the official assignee to sell their interest in 44 acres of land by public auction. Since no one was coming forward to purchase the land in the auction, the appellant had offered Rs. 67,500 and by order of the Court dated July 26, 1982, the Court accepted the appellant s offer of Rs. 77,500/-. By proceedings dated August 18, 1982, the learned Single Judge confirmed the sale. Feeling aggrieved, on appeal, the 7th respondent, in this Court respondent No. 9, had offered a sum of Rs.16,28,000/- and respondent No. 8 had offered a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- which was later raised to Rs. 2,50,000/- respectively. Treating it as offer, the Division Bench directed the 9th respondent to deposit 10% of the upset price but he did not deposit the same; the official assignee was also asked to file a report before the Division Bench on the value of the land prevailing in the neighbourhood. The official assignee has reported that the price of lands in the neighbourhood varies between Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- per acre and the lands in question would fetch as on December 10, 1990, a sum of Rs. 3,35,000/- which was worked out at the rate of Rs. 7,600/- per acre. The High Court has set aside the sale and directed re-auction of the land, fixing the upset price offered by the 8th respondent and directed the sale in open auction accordingly.

3. Pending proceedings in this Court, 7th respondent had also offered to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- and as per the direction of this Court the order was revoked. When the appeal was dismissed by a short order, on being mentioned by the learned counsel for the respondents to hear the matter on merits, order was passed on July 24, 1995 recalling the order dated July 17, 1995 and setting out the matter for disposal. Thus, this appeal by special leave is being heard.

4. Shri Ganguli, learned senior counsel for the appellant, contended that while the appellant had offered the consolidated sum of Rs. 67,500/- since no one was coming forward to bid at higher amount, the appellant offered the highest bid of Rs. 77,500. The learned single Judge, in view of the fact that the sale was postponed on more than one occasion, considered it appropriate to confirm the sale. The Division Bench, having noticed that respondent No.9 had failed to deposit 10% of his offer, was not justified in setting aside the sale and directing resale of the property. Even in this Court, the respondents have not complied with the offer of depositing the amount within the time and it indicates that the respondents are only intending to prolong the sale but they were not sincere to bid the highest price, as offered by the appellant. Shri Sampath, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that the report of the official assignee is self evident that the price of the lands in the neighbourhood varies between Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 15,000 per acre. Therefore, the price fetched by the sale of 44 acres, i.e., Rs. 77,500/- is too meagre and inadequate. Accordingly, the Division Bench was right in directing re-auction of the property fixing upset price offered by the 8th respondent. Though the 7th respondent s conduct is not worthy of credence, the fact remains that 44 acres of the land were sold for inadequate consideration; therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Division Ben