KEJRIWAL, J. — This revision has been directed against the order dated 16.11.1989, passed by learned Distt. Judge, Dholpur, by which he partly rejected the application of the petitioner dated 16.11.1989.

(2). The brief relevant facts of the case are that on the request of Non-Petitioner No. 2, the Non-Pet. No.l, the Punjab National Bank, Dholpur, advanced a loan of Rs. 1,93,000/- (one lac ninety three thousand) on 27.7.85, to the Non-Petitioner No. 2, for purchasing a truck. Subsequently, the Non-Pet. No. 2 purchased truck No. RNT 921. The Non-Pet. No. 2, executed a pronote and other documents for the repayment of the loan with interest and also hypothecated the truck in favour of Non-Pet. No. 1, the Punjab National Bank, Dholpur. When the Non-Pet. No. 2 did not repay the loan, the Punjab National Bank, filed a suit No. 5/1987, on 9.8.1988, against Non-Pet. No. 2 and guarantors in the Court of District Judge, Dholpur and prayed that a decree of Rs. 2,09, 727.80 Paisa, with interest on the same from 14.8.1987, at the rate of 12 1/2% be passed against the non-petitioner No. 2 and the guarantors. It was also prayed that the loan be recovered from the sale of aforesaid hypothecated truck and other properties of the defendants.

(3). During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff and also the guarantors submitted an application under Order 39 Rule 6 read with Order 38 Rule 5 CP.C. and it was prayed that non-petitioner No.2 be directed to produce the aforesaid truck in the Court and the said truck be sold by auction. This application of the plaintiff was accepted by the District Judge, Dholpur, vide order dated 9.8.1988. The Non-Petitioner No. 2 was directed to produce the truck on 22.8.1988, before the Tehsildar, Dholpur, who was direced to auction the same and deposit the sale price in the Court. Subsequently, in accordance with the order dated 9.8.1988, the truck was auctioned on 21.9.1989, by the Tehsildar, Dholpur. The petitioner offerred the highest bid of Rs. 139,000/-.

(4). The petitioner deposited l/4th amount of bid on the same day on 12.10.1989, the District Judge, Dholpur, accepted the bid. The petitioner was directed to deposit the balance amount within 15 days. The case was fixed before the District Judge, Dholpur, on 2.11.1989. On the said date, the petitioner submitted an application stating therein that he has already deposited l/4th amount of the bid and that he has purchased the truck free from all encumbrances. He prayed that 3/4th amount of the bid may be got deposited from him and he may be given sale certificate and possession of the truck. He further prayed that from this amount, dues of the transport department be deposited. This application of the petitioner was partly rejected by the District Judge, Dholpur, vide his order dated 16.11.1989. The District Judge, Dholpur, directed that 3/4 the amount of the bid be got deposited from the petitioner. But the learned District Judge, Dholpur, refused the prayer of the petitioner for adjustment of the dues of RTA from the sale proceeds. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred this revision before this Court. As the question was important and the interest of Government was also going to be effected by this order, notice of revision was also served on the Government Advocate, who was supplied copy of revision and the order of District Judge, Dholpur, and was also heard.

(5). It has been argued by Mr. Keshote, counsel for the auction purchaser that in the proclamation of sale, issued for the auction of the truck, there is no mention that the purchaser will be further liable to make the payment of unpaid tax, under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (for short the Act) that liability of unpaid tax under the aforesaid Act is on the Non-Petitioner No.2, who was the registered owner of the truck and not of the purchaser and that the purchaser is liable to pay the tax under the Act only after the truck is registered in his name. He d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document