CHHANGANI, J.—This second appeal by the judgment-debtors has been directed against the judgment and order of the Civil Judge, Sojat dated 20.7.1959 dismissing the appellants appeal and maintaining the dismissal of their objections.

2. The respondent obtained a decree against the appellants for an amount of Rs. 1,339.8.0 with costs and future interest on 30th November, 1942. An application for execution was presented on 18.2.1948 admittedly within the period of limitation then in force in Marwar. The execution application had a chequered career and did not yield any result for any number of years. It was dismissed in default on 6.2.1956 in the absence of the decree-holder and this advocate and in the presence of the advocate for the judgment-debtor Bhikamchand. The decree-holder put an application on 9.2.1956 for restoration of application for execution. After notice to the respondent-judgment-debtor Bhikamchand the application was restored on 26.4.1956. Subsequently in the execution proceedings the property of the judgment-debtor was sold a few times but for one reason or the other the sale had to be set-aside. On 29-12-1958 a fresh sale-proclamation for the sale of the house of the judgment-debtor for the third time was published stating that the house of the judgment-debtors would be Auctioned on 18th, 19th and 20th January, 1959 between 4 P.M. and 6 P. M. and that the sale would be knocked down at 6 P.M. on 20.1.1959. On the last mentioned date the highest bid of Rs. 1,400/-was accepted by the officer conducting the sale who even accepted a deposit of Rs. 350/-from the auction-purchaser. On 24.1.1959 the execution court, however,did not accept the last bid received on 24th and directed a re-sale to be conducted on 26.1.1959. No higher bid was received on 26.1.59 and on 2nd February, 1959 the execution court passed an order requiring the previous higher bidder to deposit the price and fixed up 28.2.59 for confirmation of the sale. On 23.2.1959 the judgment-debtors presented an objection petition. They made a grievance over the non-service of notice under O. 21 R. 22 and 66 C.P.C. and pointed out irregularities in connection with the various sales including the last lone conducted on 20.1.1959 and prayed for setting-aside the sale. Their main objection however was that the execution application having been dismissed in default on 6.2.59, the execution court had to jurisdiction to restore the sale. According to them, the order restoring the execution case being without jurisdiction was ineffective and inoperative and all subsequent proceedings were null and void. It was pointed out that on 26.4.56 a period of more than twelve years having elapsed the decree should not be executed on the basis and strength of the restoration order. They, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the petition, setting aside the sale and releasing the property from attachment. On 28.2.59 the sale was not confirmed. The auction-purchaser had not deposited the price. The court ordered a fresh sale. As the judgment-debtors appeared and put objections the court did not deem it necessary to issue fresh notice under O. 21 R. 66 C.P.C. The execution court on 4.4.1958 after hearing the arguments recorded a brief order dismissing the objection. The application for execution filed on 18.2.48 was found within limitation under the Marwar Law then in force. The contention which has been pressed in this court with the great stren-uousness, that the restoration order dated 26.4.56 should be ignored and the decree should not be allowed to be executed after expiry of twelve years from the date of decree, does not appear to have been pressed before the execution court and the execution court recorded an express decision on it. The execution court further observing that "the reply of notice under O. 21 R. 66 C.P.C. was also filed there remains nothing", dismissed the objection. The judgment-debtors filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Sojat on 20.3.5

Click Here to Read the rest of this document