Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bhagwandas s/o Chunilal Purohit, was the original defendant/judgment debtor in a recovery suit filed by respondent No.1, Machindra s/o Rama Patil, for Rs.5,29,000/-. The suit was decreed on 23rd December 2005 by the 4th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Jalgaon. The judgment debtor appealed in First Appeal No.704 of 2006, which was admitted on 18th January 2007 with a conditional stay requiring deposit of Rs.4,00,000/-. The judgment debtor failed to deposit, and the stay was vacated. Respondent No.1 then filed Special Darkhast No.38 of 2006 for execution. The property in question, G.No.800 admeasuring 71 ares, was put to auction on 2nd March 2009. Initially, one Sitaram Omkar Purohit was declared the highest bidder at Rs.4,61,000/- but failed to deposit 25% by 5:30 p.m., so his bid was cancelled. The property was immediately resold to respondent No.2, Chandrashekhar Shankar Nandedkar, the second highest bidder, at the same price. The auction was confirmed on 2nd March 2009. The judgment debtor filed an objection application (Exhibit 75) on 17th March 2009, i.e., 15 days after the sale, alleging irregularities. The executing court rejected the objection on 2nd May 2009. The judgment debtor then filed the present writ petition challenging that order. The High Court held that the objection was filed beyond the period prescribed under Order XXI Rule 92(2) read with Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which requires objections to be filed within 30 days from the date of sale, but the delay of 15 days was not properly explained. On merits, the court found no material irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the sale. The resale to the second highest bidder after the default of the first was permissible. The writ petition was dismissed, and the auction sale was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Auction Sale - Objection under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC - The judgment debtor filed objection after 15 days of auction sale without sufficient explanation for delay - Held that the executing court rightly rejected the objection as time-barred and on merits, as no material irregularity or fraud was established (Paras 5-7). B) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Resale after Default by Highest Bidder - When the highest bidder failed to deposit 25% amount, the property was immediately resold to the second highest bidder at the same price - Held that the procedure adopted was permissible and no prejudice caused to judgment debtor (Paras 4, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the executing court was justified in rejecting the objection application filed by the judgment debtor challenging the auction sale on the ground of delay and lack of merits.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the executing court rejecting the objection application. The auction sale in favour of respondent No.2 was confirmed.
Law Points
- Execution of decree
- auction sale
- objection to sale
- Order XXI Rule 90 CPC
- limitation for objection
- delay condonation
- resale after default by highest bidder
