Judgement

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. : - M/s. Bhasin Film Corporation obtained a decree against the two appellants Shamiudin and Nasimudin for a sum of Rs. 1,44,973. In execution of the decree, 28/48 share in the Shalimar Cinema, Bhogal, New Delhi belonging to the judgment-debtors was sold on September 1, 1977 for a skim of Rs. 4,37,000. An, application to set aside the sale was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the High Court and the learned single Judges order was confirmed by a Division Bench. The judgment-debtors have preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

2. Two principal submissions were made on behalf of the appellants. The first was that there was a total failure to comply with the requirements of O. XXI, R. 66 as no notice was given to the judgment-debtors of any application made by the decree-holders for settling the terms of the proclamation of sale. In fact, it was said that there was no application under O. XXI, R. 66 by the decree-holder to the court to settle the terms of the proclamation of sale. The second submission was that the sale was first held on August 29, 1977, but was not concluded. It was adjourned by the auctioneer to a date to be subsequently announced. The sale was purported to have been held on September 1, 1977 without any announcement. This resulted in the bidders being prevented from participating in the auction. A fraud was thus perpetrated by the decree-holder and the auction purchaser. On the first question, the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court held that there was no notice to the judgment-debtors of any application to settle the terms of the proclamation of sale, but that the judgment-debtors were not thereby prejudiced. On the second question, it was held that the bid list prepared by the auctioneer on August 29, 1977 showed that the sale was adjourned on the spot to September 1, 1977 and that the statement in the bid list must be presumed to be correct. The High Court was not prepared to accept the evidence of the witnesses for the judgment-debtors on that question.

3. In the view that we propose to take on the second question, we do not consider it necessary to express our view on the first question. But we do wish to say that the court has a duty to see that the requirements of O. XXI., R. 66 are properly complied with. In the words of the Judicial Committee, "In sales, under the direction of the court, it is incumbent on the court to be scrupulous in the extreme". Though it may not be necessary for the court to make a valuation and enter it in the sale proclamation in every case, it is desirable at least in cases of sale of valuable property that the court make its valuation and enter it in the sale proclamation. We think it necessary to add that no action of the court or its officers should be such as to give rise to the criticism that it was done in an indifferent or casual way. We are constrained to make these observations because it was found by the learned single Judge in the present case that there actually was no application under O. XXI, R. 66 and that the sale proclamation was prepared in a routine fashion. Having said this much, we now proceed to consider the second question. The bid list prepared by the court auctioneer on August 29, 1977 shows that each of the bidders who participated in the auction on August 29, 1977 put his signature against the bid offered by him. For example, Sardar Sharanjit .Singh, who at one stage offered a bid of Rs. 1,70,000 and later raised it to Rs. 2,50,000/- and again to Rs. 2,90,000/- has put his signature at three places against the three bids offered by him. Similarly, Gian Chand Sharma, who originally offered a bid of Rs. one lakh and later raised it to Rs. two lakhs has put his signatures at two places and Pajwant Singh, who initially offered a bid of Rs. 1,80,000 and later raised it to Rs. 2,80,000 has put his signature at two places against the bids offered by him