The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. and the principle of res judicata in the context of objections raised by the judgment debtors against the auction sale.

1. This is an execution second appeal filed by Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana against the order of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana dated 16-7-1996 affirming that of Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana dated 31-1-1994 where he had dismissed its application dated 24-1-1994 and had refused to hold auction sale dated 26-4-1993 held in favour of Rajender Singh etc. auction purchasers as void and nullity and ordered the sale to be made absolute.

2. Facts :-

Balraj Singh and Sukhdev Singh sons of Teja Singh obtained an award dated 7-6-1986 against Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana (judgment debtors). On the basis of that award, they filed execution against the judgment debtors for payment of a sum of Rs. 12,72,243.85 to them. In response to the warrant of attachment, the judgment debtors appeared through Shri P.K. Jain, Advocate. Warrant of attachment was issued by the executing Court on 16-5-1992 which was executed on 26-5-1992 and land of the JD was attached. On 24-8-1992, decree holder move application under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC for issuance of proclamation of sale by public auction. No reply was filed by the judgment debtors to that application. Rather, the judgment debtors counsel absented on 23-1-1993 and judgment debtors were proceeded ex parte. Warrant of sale was issued on 22-2-1993. On 26-4-1993 property was put to sale by public auction. Out of total and attached, land measuring 9 kanal was put to auction for Rs. 13,10,000.00. Rajinder Singh etc. auction purchasers deposited 1/4th of the auction money amounting to Rs. 3,27,500.00 = 1/4 of Rs. 13,10,000.00 with the official who conducted the auction sale at the spot. That amount of Rs. 3,27,500.00 was deposed in the bank through treasury challan dated 27-4-1993. Later on, purchasers deposited the balance amount of Rs. 9,82,500.00 in the bank vide treasury challan dated 11-5-1993. On 7-8-1993, Judgment debtors filed objections to the application under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC. Decree holders filed reply to the said objections. Auction purchasers also filed reply to the said objections. On 4-9-1993, the judgment debtors moved application under Order 21, Rule 89 read with Sec. 151, C.P.C. for setting aside sale dated 26-4-1993 and also deposited Rs. 65,500.00 through cheque No. 456783 dated 25-8-1993, towards 5% of the purchase money drawn on Punjab National Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, judgment debtors further deposited another sum of Rs.8,69,979.66 through another cheque dated 25-8-1993 as the amount for the satisfaction of the decree. An amount of Rs. 6,26,039.51p was already paid to the decree holder after the filing of the present execution vide two cheques dated 20-4-1987. Another sum of Rs. 5,58,114.66p was got deposited through the attachment of Bank account in these execution proceedings. As such the entire decretal amount stood paid. Reply to the said application was filed by the decree holders as well as by the auction purchasers. On 22-9-93. Judgment debtors moved application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning limitation for filing application under Order 21, Rule 89, CPC which was to be moved within 60 days from the date of sale as also the limitation for deposit of the amount which was required to be deposited within 30 days. Reply to the said application was also filed by the auction purchasers and decree holders. Finally the judgment debtors moved application dated 24-1-1994 before the executing Court for holding the sale dated 26-4-1993 as void and nullity praying further that sale be not confirmed. Application was contested by the decree holders and the auction purchasers. They put in reply. Executing Court dismissed application of the judgment debtors. While dismissing the application of the JD for setting aside the sale, learned executing Court observed as follows:-

"Order 21, Rule 92, CPC provides that where no application is made under Rule 89, Rule 90 or Rule 91, or where such application is made and disallowed,