JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand SoodJ (Oral):- This petition has been filed by judgment debtor for impleading Subhadra Devi (Auction Purchaser) as party to the revision petition filed by the petitioner-II)

2. In order to appreciate the controversy, facts may be noticed.

3. It appears, decree holder Bank, respondent herein filed a suit for the recovery of rupees 1, 00,904.05 paise with future interest at the rate of 13% per annum. This suit was decree by the learned District Judge, Solan on September 20, 1990. An execution petition was filed by the decree holder Bank to recover rupees 1.71.980.73 paise with cost of rupees 6582.60 paise. In the execution, the property of the judgment debtor-petitioner was attached and sold in auction on March 10, 1997. The entire property of the judgment debtor was sold for rupees 2 lakhs in favour of Subhadra Devi, auction purchaser. The petitioner filed objections before the Executing court but the objections were dismissed by the learned District Judge. Solan on November 6, 1997. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a revision petition before this court challenging the rejection of his objections. The main objection of the petitioner was that his land measuring 22-10-13 bighas was sold for rupees 2 lakhs, whereas, the value of the property was not less than rupees twenty four lacs. Even the Revenue Officer assessed the value of the land at rupees 68,964/- per bigha. Thus the value of the property, even according to the revenue assessment, comes to over rupees 16 lacs, whereas it was sold for a paltry sum of rupees 2 lakhs to the auction purchaser who is none else but the daughter of Diwakar Dutt, respondent No.2. Diwakar Dutt happened to be surety for the repaymet of the loan and is Judgment Debtor No.2. It was pleaded that the petitioner gave in writing to Naib Tehsildar at the time of auction that the land of the decree holder may be auctioned in parcels so as to satisfy the decree but his request was not accepted which was illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. According to the petitioner, only Diwakar Dutt Sharma and his close family members participated in the bid.

4. It appears, a notice on the objections filed by the petitioner was sent to Smt. Subhadra Devi, auction purchaser by the learned District Judge, Solan. However, her name was not reflected in the memo of (?)

5. This application is opposed both by Diwakar Dutt Sharma and subhead Devi on the grounds that sale was confirmed on November 6, 1997. Subhadra Devi, the auction purchaser, was not added as respondent within the period limited by law, therefore, the present application is not maintainable.

6. In rejoinder, the petitioner maintained that tl e auction purchaser could not be impleaded in the revision petition due to inadvertence for the reason that her name did not appear in the memo of parties of the impugned order. It was further stated that there is no period of limitation prescribed to implead auction purchaser as party and, therefore, it can not be said that revision is beyond the period of limitation. According to the petitioner-applicant, auction purchaser is necessary party in the revision petition which arises out of the impugned orders and no effective orders can be passed without purchase as party in the revision petition.

7. I have heard Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.D. Verma, and learned Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. Romesh Verma for respondent No.2 and the auction purchaser.

8. Contention of Mr. Verma learned Senior Counsel is that a legal right has accrued in favour of the auction purchaser and this application for addition of the name of auction purchaser in this revision petition at this belated stage cannot be permitted. He also contended that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not invokable by the petitioner to add the auction purchaser particularly when petitioner was aware that auction purchaser was a party before the District Judge notwithsta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document