( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, kowur dated 20-4-2000 in EA No. 1020/99 in EP No. 46/98 in OS No. 192/87 dismissing the application filed under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Section 151 CPC by the 6th judgment-debtor.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein is the petitioner-6th judgment-debtor in the above application.

( 3 ) EA No. 1020/99 was filed by the 6th judgment-debtor seeking to set-aside the auction sale conducted on 17-11-1999 in EP no. 46/98, filed for execution of the decree passed in OS No. 192/87. The first respondent-decree-holder/bank filed EP for due recovery of the decretal amount by sale of mortgaged property, in which, the appellant-6th judgment-debtor was served with a notice. He filed a counter raising certain objections that the Court Amin under-valued the property, which has been overruled and posted EP for settlement of terms. The terms were settled on 22-9-1999 fixing the date for sale on 17-11-1999. The proclamation, containing the terms of settlement, was drawn on 22-9-1999 that the order proclaiming sale shall be made by way of beat of torn torn and also shall be affixed near the place where the property was ordered to be sold is situated. Accordingly, the Process Server has given endorsement that proclamation has been affixed to the house on 2-11-1999 and said proclamation was made by beat of tom tom near the property which is brought for sale and torn torn receipt dated 2-11-1999 was filed, which was attested by two persons. Later the proclamation of sale was published in Praja Sakthi Newspaper on 5-11-1999 stating that the sale is to be held on 17-11-1999 and sale was conducted on the said date for a sum of Rs. 7,15,000/-and same was confirmed in favour of the second respondent-auction purchaser. Before confirmation of sale, appellant herein filed EA No. 1020/99 contending that sale is vitiated on the ground that proclamation has not been made within 15 days; there was no beat of torn torn in the vicinity of the property and there was no attestation of the neighbours in the receipts filed in the Court; proclamation was not properly published in the Nagara panchayat, Kowur; publication is defective as Amin s value and the decree-holder s value including judgment-Debtor s value are not noted and auction was conducted within 15 days of such publication of proclamation of sale in the news paper, which is short of three days; decree-holder planted three bidders at the time of auction and the second respondent-auction purchaser is having business dealings with the first respondent-Bank and lastly it was pleaded that the value given by the amin and decree-holder is grossly inadequate; the value of the property ranges between Rs. 12 lakhs to Rs. 14 lakhs and the same was knocked down in favour of the second respondent at a throw away price, therefore the sale is liable to be set-aside.

( 4 ) THE decree-holder/bank filed a counter stating that the publication of proclamation of sale is not defective and there is a gap of 15 days from the date of publication of proclamation of sale in the news paper to the date of auction. It is further stated that proclamation was ordered on 20-9-1999 and beat of torn torn and also affixture of notice was taken place on 2-11-1999. The market value of the property is about Rs. 4 lakhs as per the records maintained by Sub-Registrar.

( 5 ) THE second respondent-auction purchaser filed a separate counter denying the irregularities in conducting auction. It is further stated that proclamation was drawn in accordance with Order 21 Rule 66 cpc. In fact 7 persons were present at that time of auction and participated in the auction. The proclamation contains the value as given by the decree-holder i. e. , Rs. 2. 75 lakhs and Court Amin Rs. 4 lakhs, whereas the property fetched at auction was rs. 7,15,000/-, which is more than the value mentioned by the Court Amin and also the decree-holder as well as the Sub-Registrar s book value. In the absence of any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document