Objections under Section 47 CPC must be addressed before confirming sales of immovable property to uphold procedural integrity.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

This order shall dispose of two Civil Revisions titled above, filed by the auction purchasers, as the facts and legal issues involved are common.

2. For convenience, facts are being noted from CR-5028-2000 titled 'Hardwari Lal v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust and another'.

3. Under challenge is the order dated 19.08.2000 passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, allowing the appeal of the Judgment debtor by setting aside the Executing Court's order dated 03.10.1997 (whereby two objection petitions - one filed prior to sale under Section 47 CPC; and other filed after sale under Order XXI Rules 89 & 90 CPC were dismissed), and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

4.1 Factual Background: The Ludhiana Improvement Trust (In short 'Trust') framed a scheme under Section 36 of the Town Improvement Act. After completion of requisite formalities, Award No. 2 of 1974 dated 19.10.1974 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, granting compensation to the landowners. Dissatisfied with the award, certain landowners sought enhancement. The Tribunal enhanced compensation on 28.05.1986, which was later modified on 29.10.1986.

4.2 Since the Trust failed to disburse compensation, two of the landowners / decree holders, Pritam Singh and Bal Singh, filed execution proceedings for recovery of Rs. 11,99,235.85. During execution, a plot measuring 400 sq. yards belonging to the judgment-debtor / Trust was attached on 04.11.1995. The decree holders moved an application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC on 05.01.1996 for proclamation of sale. Despite repeated adjournments, the Trust did not file objections or even pay adjournment costs. On 16.03.1996, the Executing Court issued warrants of sale, scheduling the auction for 15.05.1996.

4.3 Before the scheduled sale, the Trust filed objections under Section 47 CPC on 10.05.1996, disputing the amount as calculated by the Decree- Holder. The matter was adjourned for reply, but the sale was nevertheless conducted on 15.05.1996. The attached plot was sold to Hardwari Lal (auction purchaser/petitioner herein) for Rs. 12,50,000/-. He deposited 25% of the bid amount on the spot and later paid the balance on 23.09.1996.

4.4 Meanwhile, the JD Trust also moved an application under Order 21 Rules 89 and 90 CPC.

4.5 Both sets of objections-under Section 47 and under Order 21 Rules 89/90 were dismissed by the Executing Court vide composite order dated 03.10.1997, and the sale was confirmed. The decree holders withdrew the auction amount on 20.10.1997, and a sale certificate was issued in favour of the auction purchaser on 28.11.1997.

4.6 The Trust appealed against the order dated 3.10.1997 of the Executing Court. By order dated 19.08.2000, the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the Executing Court's order dated 03.10.1997, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the objections filed under Section 47 CPC after hearing both the sides. Directions were also issued for refund of the auction money to the purchaser in terms of Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, with or without interest, as the case may be.

5. The present revision has been filed by the auction purchaser challenging the aforesaid order.

6.1 Contentions by Petitioner: Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the Additional District Judge erred in holding that objections under Section 47 CPC must be decided before confirmation of sale. Section 47 CPC, particularly Explanation 2, treats the auction purchaser as a party to the suit, thereby permitting consideration of objections even after sale. It is further submitted that the decree holders were rightly grante