IMPORTANT POINT
Earlier order passed on incorrect premise deserves to be recalled.

JUDGMENT

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. To state the facts in brief, a civil suit was filed by Hari Kishan Das (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff”) way back in the year 1955. It was a money suit in which decree in the sum of Rs. 11,666.66 p. was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against M/s. Diwan Kripa Ram Radha Kishan (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant”). This decree was upheld by the District Judge and by the High Court of Allahabad in Second Appeal. The problem which arose thereafter is in the execution proceedings. Execution Case No. 29 of 1962 was filed by the plaintiff/decree holder as the decree was not fully discharged. Auction notice was published on 16.04.1964. At that stage the defendant/Judgment Debtor filed an application under Order XXI Rule 83 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for postponement of sale pleading that he would raise the decreetal amount and pay the same to the plaintiff. Ultimately, on 08.10.1964 the parties came to an understanding on the basis of which statement was recorded by the Executing Court to the effect that four months' time be given to the defendant/Judgment Debtor to deposit the entire amount. It was also agreed that if the amount was not deposited in four months, the property would be sold without proclamation. Though the defendant/Judgment Debtor paid certain amount but could not make the full payment as per his statement. He filed an application for extension in which certain orders were passed. However, ultimately the property was sold and purchased by the son of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 13,700/-. Objections against the same were filed stating certain irregularities in the conduct of the auction which were dismissed. Appeal thereagainst was also dismissed by the High Court. That order was challenged in C.A. No. 8398 of 2013 which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 20.09.2013. In the said judgment it is, inter alia, noted that the decreetal amount was admittedly not paid by the defendant/Judgment Debtor which led to the dismissal of the Execution Second Appeal by the High Court.

2. The instant review petition is preferred by the defendant/Judgment Debtor ('the appellant in the said appeal') seeking review of the said judgment dated 20.09.2013. It may also be noted at this stage that during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition/Appeal interim orders were passed restraining the defendant/Judgment Debtor from disposing of the property in question. However, as per the plaintiff in violation of those orders the defendant/Judgment Debtor sold the property to certain persons. Because of this reason, contempt petition is preferred by the plaintiff. Arguments were heard in these two cases which are disposed of by this common order.

3. Adverting to the review petition, in the first instance, the case set up by the defendant/review petitioner is that this Court committed a factual error in its judgment dated 20.09.2013 by recording that the entire decreetal amount admittedly was not paid by the defendant/Judgment Debtor because of which execution second appeal was dismissed by the High Court. It is submitted by Mr. D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant/Judgment Debtor, that the entire amount stood paid and the decree had been satisfied. In order to buttress his submission learned counsel has referred to the order dated 17.02.1971 passed by the District Judge, Saharanpur in Misc. Appeal No. 116 of 1970. By this order the District Judge, Saharanpur allowed the appeal of the defendant/Judgment Debtor specifically holding that the amount as directed by the High Court had rightly been deposited through the bank drafts and that amount of Rs. 13,800/-which was deposited would be deemed to have complied with the order of the High Court dated 11.05.1970. It is also pointed out that against the said order the plaintiff/decree holder had filed an