1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the original defendant – judgment debtor challenging the orders dated 03.01.2013 passed below applications Exs. 55 and 61 in Special Execution Petition No.1 of 2000 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar.

2. The facts are as under:

2.1 The petitioner was granted land bearing City Survey Ward No. 3 in Revenue Survey No. 1654/2 by an order dated 09.04.1986. The Collector, Surendranagar granted such land for construction of a godown for commercial purpose of storage of cooking gas cylinder as the petitioner had obtained a distribution agency from the Indian Oil Corporation.

2.2 The petitioner had sought an advance from the respondent no. 2 – Syndicate Bank – original plaintiff. The bank by a sanction letter dated 14.03.1986 sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.60,000/- (OSL) and 52,500/- (ODH). Since the petitioner defaulted in payment of loan, the bank preferred Special Civil Suit No. 119 of 1992 for recovery of Rs.1,69,000/- at 19.5% interest. The suit was decreed vide a judgment and order dated 11.10.1999. A statement is made in the petition that the suit concluded exparte.

2.3 After the decree was so passed, the bank preferred Special Execution Petition No. 1 of 2000. From the record of the certified copies produced on behalf of the respondent no. 3, by Mr. Anshin Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no. 3 who is assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Goswami, learned advocate, it is seen that the execution petition was so preferred on 03.01.2000. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 3 on 23.03.2012 filed application Ex. 42 for permission to purchase the land which was the subject matter of the suit. By an order dated 08.04.2012, that application Ex. 42 was allowed and pursuant to an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- offered by respondent no. 3, the sale was confirmed in favour of respondent no. 3 and a sale deed was accordingly entered into on 05.05.2012.

2.4 The petitioner aggrieved by this sale in favour of respondent no. 3 filed an application under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ;the Code’) objecting to the sale. Such application was filed on 06.08.2012. It was the case of the petitioner by that application at Ex. 55 that the sale in favour of respondent no. 3 could not have been entered into on several counts. In a nut shell, if the objections of the petitioner at Ex.55 are considered, it was the case of the petitioner that :

(i) The land which was allotted on 09.04.1986 by the Collector was subject to certain conditions embodied in the letter. Such conditions of the letter would suggest that the land could not have been alienated without the express consent of the State Government.

(ii) It was the case of the petitioner that the bank had sought permission to participate in the bid as a decree holder under Order 21 Rule 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. No proclamation as envisaged was published prior to the property being put on sale. The petitioner was neither put to notice nor were the application made at Ex. 42 by the respondent no. 3 nor the application at Ex. 39 for permission to appoint a valuer were served on the petitioner – judgment debtor.

2.5 According to the petitioner, therefore, the entire exercise of the property being sold in favour of respondent no. 3 was behind the back of the petitioner and therefore the sale in favour of the respondent no. 3 suffered from material irregularities and/or fraud and therefore ought to be set aside in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code.

2.6 Also on record are the objections filed by respondent no. 3 in whose favour the sale was executed. In the objections so filed by the subsequent purchaser – respondent no. 3, it was suggested that notices were issued in the newspaper which are on record at Ex. 14. The petitioner - original defendant – judgment debtor did not remain present. Proclamation under Orde