High Court Of Calcutta
Bijitendra Mohan Mitra, Surya Kumar Tiwari
SATYANARAYAN BARI - Appellant
Versus
PRATIVA BANERJEE - Respondent
F. M. A 1045 Of 1992
Decided On : 07/12/1999
EXECUTION SALE - SETTING ASIDE - GROUNDS - MATERIAL IRREGULARITY OR FRAUD IN PUBLISHING OR CONDUCTING THE SALE - UNDER-VALUATION OF PROPERTY IN SALE PROCLAMATION - SALE PRICE SHOCKINGLY LOW - TRANSACTION AMOUNTING TO FRAUD ON COURT - SALE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
A property in Jackson Lane, Calcutta, was sold in execution of a decree for Rs. 4,125/-. The judgment debtor filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. The trial court allowed the application and set aside the sale.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property was grossly undervalued in the sale proclamation and that the sale price was shockingly low. The court also found that there was no proper service of notice on the judgment debtor under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: Whether the sale should be set aside on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the under-valuation of the property in the sale proclamation and the shockingly low sale price amounted to fraud on the court. The court also held that the lack of proper service of notice on the judgment debtor under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure was a material irregularity.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the trial court's order setting aside the sale.
( 1 ) THE connected misc. appeals are directed from the judgment and Order No. 261, dated 12. 9. 91 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 59 of 72 arising out of a petition under order 21, Rule 90, read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the judgment debtor Bhudhar Chandra Banerjee in Money Execution Case No. 17 of 71 and subsequently it was proceeded with by his legal heirs and representatives on his demise. The petitioner in the connected petition before the trial Court has prayed for setting aside the auction sale of the premises in question in execution of the said decree passed in Money suit No. 7 of 66 in Money Execution Case No. 17 of 71 initiated by the decree holder thereof.
( 2 ) IT is necessary to give a brief backgound of the narration of entire facts giving rise to the instant proceeding. As early as on 3. 1. 66 one J. L. Bothra, the respondent No. 7, instituted Money suit No. 7 of 66 against Bhudhar Chandra Banerjee for recovery of money lent on account of advance together with an interest calculated about Rs. 4,000/ -. The said decree was passed on 20. 9. 68 and as a follow up to the same Money Execution Case No. 17 of 71 was initiated by the decree holder. In the said execution proceeding an attachment of property was made on 4. 3. 71 which was followed up by filing of an application for sale under Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same was allowed. The concered court issued sale proclamation sometime on 18. 6. 71 as a result of which premises No. 4b, Jackson Lane, Calcutta was afflicted with an order dated 20. 7. 71 because of the issuance of a writ of Attachment. Thereupon an insertion was caused to be circulated in the daily issue of Statesman on 5. 8. 71. On the same being publicised, Bhudhar Banerjee appeared in the Court and filed a petition for a month's time to pay the decreetal due by 13. 9. 71. As decreetal dues were not paid, therefore the sale was fixed on 22. 10. 71 by the Court. The Court did not accept the highest bid at Rs. 4,001/- and it was again re-scheduled on 26. 10. 71. The same was adjourned on the prayer of the judgment debtor who ultimately failed to pay the decreetal dues and auction was held on 17. 11. 71. Then Bhudhar Chandra Banerjee filed an application under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure for not confirming the aforesaid auction sale and the application was directed to be put up on 17. 12. 71. As nobody appeared on 17. 12. 71 the auction was confirmed. Thereafter the judgment debtor after the expiry of the prescribed period made an application under Order 21,
Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure from which the Misc. Case arises. The same was followed up by filing of a petition under section 18 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid petition under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application out of which the connected Misc. case arises has been sought to be built up on multifarious grounds as reflected from the connected petition. The pleas which have been taken in the petition are to the effect that no notice has been issued or served on the judgment debtor under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The controversy has been raised also on the footing that the decree holder has put the value of the property under exection at Rs. 75,000/- and the same has been sold for Rs. 4,000/- and odd on account of gross irregularity for alleged fraud practised by decree holder in publishing and conducting the sale. As the publication of the sale has not been properly made according to allegations, therefore, price was not given in the exectution petition for which no prospective bidder was attracted. There has been also allegation of non compliance of strict adherence to provisions of the Order 21, Rule 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such publication of sale appearing in the Statesman on 5. 8. 71 was viti
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.