IMPORTANT POINT
Auction sale of property – Non-compliance of mandatory provisions can vitiate auction sale of property.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 3342/2015, by which, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by respondent No. 1 herein and has set aside the order passed by the lower Appellate Court and has restored the order passed by the Executing Court with respect to the property in question, the original respondent No. 1 – objector before the Executing Court has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: ­

2.1 There was a dispute between National Ginni Enterprises and Smt. Gayatri Agrawal with respect to the L.P.G. gas agreement. A civil suit No. 07­A/98 was filed by the said Smt. Gayatri Agrawal against the National Ginni Enterprises. The learned Trial Court passed a decree by directing the judgment debtor (National Ginni Enterprises) to provide L.P.G. gas as per the conditions of the agreement. The decree provided that if the defendants are unable to implement the said order, in alternatively it was directed that the plaintiff was entitled to get the amount of Rs.2,38,450/­ + Rs.23,500/­ (sic) relating to cost of the gas cylinders and regulators respectively. The judgment debtor did not fulfill the first portion of the order and did not supply the gas cylinders and regulators. Therefore, the decree holder filed the execution petition before the Executing Court. It was decided to sell the property of the judgment debtor. Accordingly, a declaration was made and property was auctioned and sold on 03.11.2011 in favour of respondent No. 1 herein. The appellant herein – original respondent No. 1 filed objection before the Executing Court, contending, inter-alia, that the property was purchased by him from judgment debtor on 31.08.1999 and that they are in possession of the said land. An application under Order 21 Rule 90 r/w 151 of the CPC was filed. The learned Executing Court overruled the objections and rejected the application under Order 21 Rule 90 by order dated 23.01.2013. The appellant flied miscellaneous civil appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Damoh being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 12/2013. The lower Appellate Court allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of Executing Court dated 23.01.2013 and remitted the matter back to the Executing Court to rehear the parties and after taking into account all the facts and circumstances, pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The order passed by the lower Appellate Court was the subject matter before the High Court by way of present writ petition. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has set aside the order passed by the lower Appellate Court by observing that the appellant herein – original respondent No. 1 has failed to plead and establish the nature of irregularity or fraud committed in sale and therefore, no fault can be found in the order of the Executing Court.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original respondent No. 1 has preferred the present appeal.

3. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1.

4. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has committed a serious error in allowing the writ petition and quashing and setting aside the well-reasoned order passed by the lower Appellate Court.

4.1 It is submitted that in the present case there was breach of Order 21 Rule 64 and Order 21 Rule 84/85 of CPC and therefore, due to non-compliance of the aforesaid provisions the sale has been vitiated.

4.2 It is submitted that in the present case the property i