This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25.11.2013 in E.A.No.874/2012 in E.P.No.457/2009 in O.S.No.477/2008 before the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam. Necessary facts have been narrated in O.P(C) No.550/2012 which was disposed of by this Court as per order dated 05.09.2012. It is unnecessary to reiterate the facts in this order. 2. Suffice to say that by the said order, this Court granted an opportunity to the petitioner to assail the sale under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the matter went back to trial court, no evidence was adduced by the petitioner and the court below on the basis of available materials came to the conclusion that there are no grounds to set aside the sale and dismissed the petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the decision in Purushotama Reddy vs. Sateesh (2008 (3) KLT
590 (SC)) contended that civil court was obliged while passing an order to take note of the payment that had been effected in the criminal case in which the petitioner was prosecuted and found guilty and he was directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is contended that a decree passed without adjusting that amount is not sustainable in law.
4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the value of the property at the relevant time is much more than what was shown in the proclamation of sale and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, 10 cents of property which was proclaimed for sale would fetch a minimum amount of Rs.20 lakhs. It was not necessary to sell the entire 10 cents at that time and sale of only a portion of the property would have been sufficient to meet the debt. According to the learned counsel, these vitiating circumstances have been omitted to be noticed by the court below and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that ever after remand by this Court, there was no attempt from the side of the petitioner to adduce any evidence in support of his claim. The court below therefore felt it proper to accept the document produced by the petitioner and on the basis of the materials already available on record, it was found that there was no evidence to show that sale was vitiated and therefore dismissed the petition.
6. In the judgment in O.P(C) No.550/2012 in paragraph 3 it is observed as follows:
“3. The following facts emerge from the discussion above.
i) Entire amount covered by the cheque has already been paid in the criminal prosecution.
ii) Valuable extent of property has been sold for a ridiculously low price of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only).
iii) The petitioner was seriously ill and under treatment during this period of time”.
7. It is under those circumstances this Court had permitted the petitioner to invoke Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for challenging the sale. After the matter went back to trial court, there was no attempt from the side of the petitioner to show that the valuation in proclamation of sale was too low and the property would fetch a higher amount. He remained satisfied by filing a petition and did nothing thereafter. On the other hand, the decree holder produced a document showing the value of the property and it was on that basis proclamation of sale was drawn up. The court below, after considering the materials, found that there was no irregularity in the sale and therefore, sale cannot be interfered with.
8. At the time of hearing, it is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the property was sold for Rs.2 lakhs. There was a mortgage subsisting at the relevant time and the decree holder who is the purchaser of property in auction sale had discharged that mortgage debt also. If that be so, the decree holder steps into shoes of the mortgager and that liability too will have to be borne by the judgment debtor. There was no attempt from the side of the judgment debtor to show that the valuation is too low. No statement was filed by the petitioner herein to show that the amount claimed was not due on the date of sale. In fact, there was no attempt from the side of the petitioner to establish any of the contentions taken by him to assail the sale. Under those circumstances, the court below has no option but to dismiss the petition.
This Court is unable to find any irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the order of the court below.
This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A. to Judge.