Judgement

SUBBA RAO, J. : These two appeals raise the question of the validity of a court sale held in contravention of S. 35 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 (Bengal Act X of 1940), hereinafter called the Act.

2. The facts in both the appeals may be briefly stated. In Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1961, Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, respondent No. 1, executed a first mortgage in favour of one Provash Chandra Mukherjee, since deceased, for a sum of Rs. 12,000/-. Respondent No. 1 executed a second, third and fourth mortgages in favour of the appellant for a total sum of Rs. 7,700/-. He also executed another mortgage in favour of the 9th respondent. In the year 1948 respondents 2 and 3, representing the first mortgagee s estate, filed Title Suit No. 8 of 1948 in the 7th Additional Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore for enforcing the first mortgage. To that suit the puisne mortgagees were also made parties, On May 24, 1948, a preliminary decree by consent, was made in the suit whereunder the judgment-debtor was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,473-7-9 to the appellant in 7 equal annual instalments. As the judgment-debtor failed to pay the said amount, in due course a final decree was passed in the mortgage suit on or about February 2, 1949. Thereafter the decree was put in execution on January 31, 1950, and in the said execution application a schedule of properties sought to be sold for the satisfaction of the said claim was annexed. The schedule comprised 11 properties and the appellant gave valuation of the said properties. Though the 1st respondent received a notice under O. XXI. R. 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he did not file any objection to the valuation. Though the first respondent got the sale adjourned a number of times promising to pay the decretal amount, he failed to do so. Finally two of the said properties were put up for sale on June 23, 1951, and one of the said properties was purchased by the 12th respondent for a sum of Rs. 11,800/- and the other, by the 13th respondent for a sum Rs. 10,100/-. On July 21, 1951, the 1st respondent filed an application in the executing court for setting aside the said sale under O. XXI, R. 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, on the ground that S. 35 of the Act was not complied with .The learned Subordinate Judge held that there was no fraud in publishing and conducting the sale, that the price of the lots sold was fair and that the sale was not vitiated by reason of infringement of S. 35 of the Act. On appeal a Division Bench of the High Court held that though there had not been any substantial injury to the 1st respondent, the provisions of S. 35 of the Act were mandatory and, therefore, the infringement of the said provisions would invalidate the sale. In that view, it set aside the sale and directed the appellant to refund the money with interest.

3. Civil Appeal No. 86 of 1961 also arises out of the same execution proceedings. Under the said compromise preliminary decree the judgment-debtor agreed to pay the decretal amount of Rs. 25,687/- to the executors of the estate of the first mortgagee, respondents 2 and 3. As the amount was not paid, the said respondents filed an application in the 7th Court of the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge. Alipore, for the execution of the said decree. In the execution petition 8 properties were described and their valuations were given. The judgment-debtor filed objections to the valuation given by the decree-holders, but on the date fixed for setting the valuations of the said properties neither the judgment-debtor nor his advocate appeared in court. The learned Subordinate Judge, by his order dated February 11, 1950, directed that both the valuations of the decree-holders and the judgment-debtor be noted in the sale proclamation. Thereafter, the sale proclamation was duly issued and the date of the sale was fixed for May 11. 1950. The judgment-debtor took as many as 15 adjournments of the sale promising to pay the decretal amount, bu