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

PETITIONER: S.S. DAYANANDA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K.S. NAGESH RAO & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      This special  leave petition  arises from  the judgment and order  dated July  16, 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in C.R.P. no. 5643.      The first  respondent suffered  a decree in sum of Rs.. 2,400/- for  recovery of  which, obviously included interest and costs in a sum of Rs.4,000/-/-, his property was brought to sale on October 25, 1978 and the petitioner purchased the same for a sum of Rs.. 67,000/-. An application was filed by the respondent under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure  (CPC)   impugning  the   legality  of   the  sale conducted. The  executing Court dismissed the application by order dated  August 16,  1990. On appeal the appellate court set aside  the order  of the executing Court and allowed the petition declaring  that the  sale was illegal. On revision, the High  Court by  the order  has confirmed  the same.  The finding recorded  by the  appellate Court and the High Court is that non-compliance of the procedure required under Order XXI, Rule 64, CPC had vitiated the sale.      It is  contended for  the petitioner that the executing Court having found that the adequacy of consideration is not a ground  for setting aside the sale but the appellate Court and the  High Court  have not  gone into that respect of the matter. The  appellant having  purchased the property valued in the  proclamation at  Rs. 85,000/-, The sale could not be set aside.  We find  no force  in the contention. IT is seen that the High Court has noted that the procedural compliance of Order  XXI, Rule  64, CPC  was not  adhered to which is a mandatory requirement  as held  by this Court in Desh Bandhu Gupta v/s  N.L. Anand  & Rajinder  Singh [(1991) 1 SCC 131]. Equally the sale consideration of the property was in excess of the  execution. Under these circumstances, the High Court is justified  in confirming the order of the appellate Court setting aside the sale.      The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.