http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: HIRABAI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HANUMANTH KRISHNAJI BHIDE & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   511        1996 SCALE  (6)254

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R        This   special  leave  petition  arises  against  the judgment and  order of  the High  Court of  Karnataka  dated April 17,  1996. in  MFA No.146/96. The admitted position is that the  father of  the respondents  had a  money decree in O.S.A.No.132/89. The  Civil Judge  vide decree dated January 12, 1994  granted a  sum of  Rs.2,50,000/-  and  costs  with future interest  at the  rate of  6% on  all the  defendants including the  petitioner. All  were jointly  and  severally liable. Consequently,  execution came  to be  filed on April 21, 1994  to recover  a sum  of Rs.3,33,860/-.  Though three items of  the property  belonging  to  the  petitioner  were listed for execution and attched under Order 21 Rule 54, CPC only  one   of  the  items,  namely,  8  acres  and  odd  of agricultural land  was brought to sale. In fact the property sold on  August 26,  1995 was  purchased by  5th resort  for Rs.6,40,000/-. The  petitioner filed  an  application  under Order 21  Rule 90,  CPC read with Section 47 challenging the sale. It  is contended  primarily that  proclamation of  the sale under  Order 31  Rule 66, CPC did not contain valuation of the  property  and,  therefore,  the  sale  conducted  in furtherance thereof  was  not  valid  in  law.  It  is  also contended  that   the  sale   was   vitiated   by   material irregularity and fraud in conducting the sale. The executing Court rejected  the contentions  and dismissed the petition. The appeal  came to  be filed in the High Court. Pursuant to an observation  made by  the learned  Judge, opportunity was given to  the petitioner  to pay 15% interest on the auction purchase  price   of  Rs.6,40,000/-  and  odd.  The  auction purchaser had  agreed for  releasing the property from sale. Though opportunity  was given  to the  petitioner to deposit the amount the petitioner failed to avail of the opportunity nor did she deposit it. The High Court by the impugned order dismissed the appeal. Thus, this special leave petition.       It is contended that the proclamation does not contain the valuation  and, therefore,  the sale  is bad in law. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

High Court  has pointed out that though notice was served on the petitioner  under Order  21 Rule  66, CPC the petitioner has failed  to give  the valuation  of their  own. The Court relied upon valuation given by the decree-holder and settled the terms  of the  sale proclamation.  The property was sold for much  more than the decretal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and odd; therefore,  there is  no illegality in the proclamation of the sale made by the executing Court.       The  High Court  also pointed out that the petitioners could not  prove that there was any material irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale. the High Court noted that:      "A  perusal   of  the  order  sheet      maintained by  the executing  court      shows that  the appellant  filed an      application under  Order 21 Rule 90      CPC and in the said application the      Court adjourned the case for filing      objections  to  the  said  I.A.  On      30.9.1995  the   respondent   filed      objections to  the I.A.  Thereafter      the  matter   has   adjourned   for      evidence.  On   20.10.1995  at  the      request of  the  advocate  for  the      appellant the  case  was  adjourned      for  evidence   and   hearing.   On      31.10.1995 the  advocate  appearing      for the  appellant  submitted  that      his objections  may be taken as his      arguments  Accordingly,  the  Court      passed  the   final  order  on  the      application filed  under  Order  21      Rule 90  CPC. The  above said facts      clearly   disclose    that   though      opportunity  was   given   to   the      appellant to give evidence to prove      their fraud  or irregularity he has      not availed of that opportunity and      proved the fraud or irregularity as      alleged   in    his    application.      Therefore, there  is no  reason  to      set aside the sale on the ground of      any  irregularity   or   fraud   in      publishing or conducting the sale.           On 8.4.1996  the Court  orally      suggested to  the counsel  for  the      appellant to  pay  the  amount  due      under the  decree  along  with  the      solatium at 15% paid by the auction      purchaser  for  which  the  auction      purchaser has  no objection  to set      aside the sale provided he has been      paid the amount as suggested by the      Court.  For   this  suggestion  the      counsel for the appellant agreed to      pay   the   amount   as   suggested      provided some time is given to him.      Accordingly, the case was adjourned      to 18.4.1996  with an understanding      that the  appellant shall  pay  the      amount with  solatium. On 16.4.1996      the  advocate   submitted  that  on      amount  of  the  communication  gap      between him  and his  client he was      not in  a position  to say  whether      his client  is willing  to  deposit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    the  amount   as  directed  by  the      Court. This  submission in  my view      is only  to avoid  payment and drag      on  the   proceedings.  Though  the      indulgence was  shown by this court      to the  appellant he  has not  made      use of  the said  situation to save      the  property.  Hence,  I  find  no      reasons to interfere with the order      passed by the trial court.           Accordingly,  the   appeal  is      dismissed with costs of Rs.1000/-."      A  reading   thereof  would   clearly   indicate   that opportunity was given to the petitioner to establish whether the sale  was vitiated by any material irregularity or fraud in publishing  or conducting the proclamation of sale by the decree-holder. Except  repeating the  averment and raising a contention in the written arguments, no evidence was adduced to prove  them.  Under  those  circumstances,  the  material conditions required  under Order  21 Rule  90, SPC  are  not proved. It  is contended  for the  petitioners that they are prepared to  pay the  amount if  an opportunity  is given to them. The High Court in fact gave the opportunity to pay the amount with  interest at  the rate of 15% on the sale amount but the petitioners have not availed of the opportunity. The High court  has observed  that the  petitioners intended  to prolong the  finalization of  the sale.  We think  that  the observation made  by the  High Court  is  justified  on  the facts. We  do  not  think  that  it  is  a  case  warranting interference by further extension of time.      The special Leave petition is accordingly dismissed.