JUDGMENT

K. Ramaswamy, J.

1. The appellant judgment debtor, was a tenant of Smt. Shanti Devi, who applied on September 28, 1974 for eviction of him for committing default in paying the rent. On September 30, 1974, she sold it to the first respondent who got impleaded himself in the pending proceedings and also independently sought for eviction. Pending the proceedings the appellant deposited rent in the name of Shanti Devi which now is ultimately found to be Rs. 13,440. The decree for eviction made against him was ultimately confirmed by this court. The suit of the first respondent for the arrears of rent was decreed for a sum of Rs. 6,419.98. Pending eviction proceedings, in the Writ Petition No. 830 of 1978 of the appellant, the High Court of Delhi directed on September 6,1979, after hearing both the parties, and without prejudice to the contentions of the respondent, that the amount deposited by him may be credited to the account of the respondent. The first respondent filed E.P. No. 1974/78 in the court of the Addl. Sub Judge, 1st Class for sale of the appellants plot of land bearing 31/35, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, a commercial area of an extent of 550 square yards to recover Rs. 7,780.33 which includes costs. On November 4,1978 warrant of its attachment was issued under Order 21 Rule 54 in Form 24 of appendix E of the schedule to C.P.C. On becoming aware of that the appellant filed an objection petition contending that since he had already deposited in the Rent Control case Rs. 13,440.00, more than the decretal amount, in the Rent Control Court, the decree stands satisfied and became inexecutable. He also pleaded that Execution Court is devoid of jurisdiction as its pecuniary jurisdiction is limited to Rs. 25,000. Arguments were heard thereon. Ultimately on April 20, 1979 the Court passed the order thus :

"Order dictated on this date. The Decree Holder has moved an application under Order 21 Rule 66, CPC for warrant of proclamation of sale by public auction of the property of JD. I. Accordingly allow the application of the Decree Holder for sale of the property of the J.D. as per the following programmes:-

Court door 3 May, 1990

Spot 17 May, 1979

Auction 6 July, 1979

Report 13 July, 1979."

(original records were called for and this was the only order found from the record)

2. Admittedly the appellant was neither given notice nor was he present, nor aware of passing that order. On May 2, 1979 sale warrant under Order 21 Rule 66, C.P.C. was issued. On July 6, 1979 auction was held in which Rajinder Singh and his wife Tavinder Kaur were joint highest bidders for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000. On becoming aware of the sale on August 10, 1979 the appellant immediately filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. raising objection to the validity of the sale. On inspection of the record he later on filed an application, which was allowed on payment of costs, to impugne the sale under Section 47 Order 151 C.P.C. He pleaded that the sale was collusive and fraudulent. The value of the site was Rs. 3,50,000. It was sold for inadequate price. He was not served with any notice either under Order 21 Rule 54 or under Order 21 Rule 66. There is no sale proclamation. No notice was issued before settling the terms of the proclamation of sale. The sale proclamation neither specified the place or time at which the sale was to be conducted, nor was it published in the locality. He reiterated his plea of his prior deposit of more than the E.P., amount, and the execution courts lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and absence of wide publicity led to fetching of less price. The so called bidders were not genuine persons nor had the capacity to purchase the property. Only the second respondent and his brother were the participants and the bid was, therefore, a collusive one. The Execution Court held that due procedure was followed in bringing the property to sale. In view of Order 21 Rule 90(3) the objections raised to the validity