The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Order XXI Rule 92 CPC, the Court is obligated to confirm the auction sale in the absence of pending objections, and this obligation is imperative to avoid complications at a later date.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

EA 673/2007

1. In these proceedings, the decree holder of the applicant seeks confirmation of a sale order through proclamation of Court.

2. The facts necessary for a decision are that the decree holder had sued the defendant/judgment debtor, in CS(OS) 1546/1996, before this Court. The suit was decreed against the defendant, Shri Bhushan Grover (hereafter referred to as JD) on 13.7.2001 for Rs. 35,24,805.57 paise with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. The present execution proceedings were brought into Court on 20.12.2001. Among others, the decree holder sought attachment of immovable property bearing Municipal Nos. J-9/45, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027, owned by the judgment debtor.

3. This Court, by an order dated 17.1.2002 attached the property. The judgment debtor entered appearance and sought time to explore the possibility of amicably resolving the dispute. Later his wife, Ms.Archana Grover, filed an application, i.e. EA 441/2002, objecting to the maintainability of the execution proceedings, and objecting to the attachment. Notice was issued on that application on 1.10.2002.

4. There was no appearance of either the decree holder or objector on 6.11.2003. The entire proceedings was, thereforee, dismissed for non- prosecution. The decree holder later moved an application, i.e. EA836/2003. The notice was issued to the judgment debtor, returnable on 18.3.2004 The Court restored the execution proceedings on 18.3.2004, recording as follows:

18.03.2004

Present: Ms. Abha Malhotra for the Decree Holder.

EA No. 836/2003 in EX P. No. 4/2002

The execution petition and EA No. 441/2002 were dismissed in default on 6th November, 2003 as none had appeared for the Decree Holder. The Judgment Debtor was not appearing in the proceedings regularly on three dates prior to the date when the petition as well as the application were dismissed in default. Accordingly, there is no need to issue notice of this application of the Judgment Debtor.

Considering the averments made in the application, the petition as well

as EA No. 441/2002 stand restored to its original number. The application stands disposed of.

EX P No. 4/2002 and EA No. 441/2002

List again on 18th May, 2004, for further orders.

R.C.Chopra, J.

March 18, 2004

5. This Court, by its order dated 27.7.2004, drew the schedule for proclamation of sale; notice was directed to be published in the newspapers on 30.8.2004 On 20.9.2004, the auction sale took place, as scheduled. The property was auctioned for Rs. 10,60,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs sixty thousand only). 25% of the amount was paid on the date of auction, i.e. 20.9.2004 and the balance was paid on 1.10.2004 The said amount has been deposited in Court.

.6. Subsequently, on 18.10.2005, again on account of non-appearance of the parties, the execution proceedings were dismissed. However, this Court restored the proceedings by its subsequent order dated 2.12.2005. The Court also issued notice to the auction purchaser and judgment debtor, on the same date. The subsequent proceedings on 2.2.2006, 20.4.2006 show that counsel for the auction purchaser was present. However, the decree holder had to take steps for serving the judgment debtor through publication under Order V Rule 20 CPC.

.7. On subsequent dates of hearing, counsel for the Objector, Mr. Karunesh Tandon appeared in the proceedings. In the meanwhile, yet another development took place. The judgment debtor, in spite of attachment of the property, apparently, transferred it to a third party. In the circumstances, the Court directed the Objector to be present by its order dated 5.11.2007. On 15.11.2007, the Court after considering the materials on record, passed the following order:

.The objector is not present even today despite directions. It seems that she is willfully avoiding her appearance in the court despite repeated directions. Under these circumstances, the order dated 5th November, 2007 and subsequent order dated 14th November