Date : 19/06/2012 1.00. Present Civil Revision Application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner herein – original Judgement Debtor to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd.21/22-9-2010 passed by the learned Executing Court below Ex.1 in Special Execution Petition Nos.93/2002, 94/2002, 19/2003, 20/2003, 21/2003 and 22/2003, as well as confirming sale of lands/properties bearing Survey No.2196/2 Paiki, Plot No.3 admeasuring 3147.05 sq.mtrs.; Plot No.6 admeasuring 2843.45 sq.mtrs.; and Plot No.7 admeasuring 8210.50 sq.mtrs., in favour of the auction purchaser Suryakant Somabhai Patel for an amount of Rs.1,48,00,500/-. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order passed by the learned Executing Court dtd.16/5/2011 appointing Court Commissioner/Receiver to get the sale deed executed in favour of the auction purchaser - respondent No.2 herein and to issue share certificate in his name. 2.00. Facts leading to the present Civil Revision Application, in nutshell, are as under :-
2.01. That the respondent No.1 herein – original Judgement Debtor – Vallabh Vidyanagar Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. has filed various different execution petitions against the petitioner - judgement debtor being Execution Petition Nos. Nos.93/2002, 94/2002, 19/2003, 20/2003, 21/2003 and 22/2003, before the learned Executing Court and during the course of the execution proceedings, properties bearing Survey No.2196/2 Paiki, Plot No.3 admeasuring 3147.05 sq.mtrs.; Plot No.6 admeasuring 2843.45 sq.mtrs.; and Plot No.7 admeasuring 8210.50 sq.mtrs., and also one another property came to be attached under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At this stage it is required to be noted that the present Civil Revision Application is with respect to the properties bearing Survey No.2196/2 Paiki, Plot No.3 admeasuring 3147.05 sq.mtrs.; Plot No.6 admeasuring 2843.45 sq.mtrs.; and Plot No.7 admeasuring 8210.50 sq.mtrs. only. That the aforesaid properties bearing Survey No.2196/2 Paiki, Plot No.3 admeasuring 3147.05 sq.mtrs.; Plot No.6 admeasuring 2843.45 sq.mtrs.; and Plot No.7 admeasuring 8210.50 sq.mtrs., which are already attached by the executing court, was put to auction and ultimately respondent No.2 herein offered highest price of Rs.1,48,00,500/-. It appears that the Court Commissioner submitted report to the executing court and requested to confirm the sale under Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At that stage, the petitioner herein – original judgement debtor submitted objection at Ex.59 making various allegations with respect to not following the procedure as required under the provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure making grievance that the properties have been sold at lower price.
2.02. After considering the same and considering the scope and objections which are required to be considered at the stage of Order 21 Rule 92 of he Code of Civil Procedure, the learned executing court passed the impugned order dtd.22/9/2000 confirming the sale in favour of the respondent No.2 herein and the auction purchaser has already deposited Rs.1,48,00,500/- in exercise of the powers under Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to properties bearing Survey No.2196/2 Paiki, Plot No.3 admeasuring 3147.05 sq.mtrs.; Plot No.6 admeasuring 2843.45 sq.mtrs.; and Plot No.7 admeasuring 8210.50 sq.mtrs., and so far as the objections submitted at Ex.49 in Special Execution Petition No.94 of 2002 with respect to another property, the executing court has passed an order to issue notice upon the purchaser and thereafter to pass appropriate order after hearing the parties.
2.03. It appears that thereafter after the statutory period of appeal to challenge the order passed by the executing Court under Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure dtd.22/9/2010 confirming the sale in favour of the respondent No.2, is over, and even Civil Revision Application No. 65 of 2010 against the aforesaid order came to be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction and there was no further stay order, respondent No.2 herein purchased the aforesaid properties and also deposited a sum of Rs.1,48,00,500/- and submitted application Ex.19 for appropriate direction directing the Receiver to see that the name of the petitioner is deleted from the aforesaid properties and the share certificate are issued in his name and considering the fact that earlier sale in favour of the respondent No.2 herein has already been confirmed under Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the auction purchaser has already deposited amount of Rs.1,48,00,500/- towards sale consideration, the learned executing court has passed the impugned order dtd.16/5/2011 issuing direction to the Receiver to see that the share certificates are issued in the name of the auction purchaser and even sale deeds are also executed in favour of the auction purchaser. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders, petitioner herein – original Judgement Debtor – original owner of the aforesaid properties bearing Survey No.2196/2 Paiki, Plot No.3 admeasuring 3147.05 sq.mtrs.; Plot No.6 admeasuring 2843.45 sq.mtrs.; and Plot No.7 admeasuring 8210.50 sq.mtrs.,has preferred the present Civil Revision Application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3.00. Mr.Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as such the learned executing court has not followed the procedure as required under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted that as such the entire execution proceedings conducted by the learned executing court are absolutely illegal and without following mandatory provisions as required under Order 21 Rule 54; Order 21 Rule 66(2), and Order 21 Rule 69, Order 21 Rule 83, of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3.01. Mr.Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that first of all the learned executing court has materially erred in consolidating all execution petitions. It is submitted that even before proceeding further with the execution proceedings, the learned executing court has not ascertained the actual amount due and payable under the decree / decrees and therefore, unless and until the actual amounts due and payable under the decree / decrees, are ascertained, the executing court is not justified in proceeding further with the execution proceedings and passing order of attachment of the properties as well as auctioning the suit properties.
3.02. Mr.Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that even some of the properties were sold and the amount was already deposited in the executing court, the executing court has not given credit of the said amount.
3.03. Mr.Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that as such as per Order 21 Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 66 it is the duty of the Court to first ascertain the amount and thereafter notice is required to be issued to the judgement creditor – i.e. petitioner herein. It is submitted that in the present case, no notice is issued to the petitioner for selling out the lands/properties in question and therefore, the executing court has materially erred and committed an irregularity and/or illegality in passing order below Ex.1. In support of his above submission Mr.Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyendrain Bajoria and another Versus Ramnarain Tibrewal and another, reported in (1993)4 SCC 414 as well as in the case of Desh Bandhu Gupta Versus N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 131.
3.04. Mr.Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that even at first auction came to be postponed and therefore, before holding the auction at the second time, again notice was required to be given to the petitioner - Judgement Debtor which has not been given and therefore also the auction proceedings are illegal.
3.05. Mr.Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that the Court Commissioner has not followed the procedure as required to be followed under Order 21, Rule 65, Rule 66, Rule 67 and Rule 68 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted that in the present case, though the same was postponed in the year 2005, the Court Commissioner did not give any notice to the petitioner for selling out his lands/properties before the sale, whereas the report made by the Court Receiver in 2008 and the executing court has passed an order for confirmation of the sale after a period of more than 2 years i.e. in the year 2010, that too at the same price, when the price of the land is already increased by passage of time.
3.06. Mr.Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that even procedure as required under Order 21 Rule 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also not been followed. It is submitted that earlier, the petitioner had given an application under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside sale on the ground of irregularity and fraud committed by the Court Commissioner, even the court commissioner did not submit it before the executing court even the learned executing court has not decided the said application as on date and therefore, there was no question of confirming the sale by the executing court. By making above submissions and relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sai Enterprises Versus Bhimreddy Laxmaiah and another, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 576, it is requested to allow the present Civil Revision Application by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders and to direct the executing court to initiate execution proceedings with exact decretal amount and thereafter auction the lands/properties of the petitioner so that market value of the lands/properties as on date can be achieved.
4.00. Present Civil Revision Application is opposed by Mr.H.M. Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the judgement creditor as well as Mr.Hriday Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the purchaser of the suit premises, who has purchased the property on payment of full sale consideration in a court auction.
4.01. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents have vehemently submitted that the suit property in question has been sold by the Court in a Court auction in an execution petition and at the relevant time no objections were raised by the petitioner - judgement debtor which are now raised after auction is held and the suit premises has been sold. It is submitted that while considering the objections at the time of confirmation of the sale the only objection which can be considered are as provided under Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted that once property has been auctioned in an execution proceedings, objections which can be raised at earlier stages, cannot be raised after the property is auctioned / sold in a court proceedings. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present present Revision Application.
5.00. Mr.Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the purchaser has stated at the bar that he has purchased the suit property in a Court auction for a consideration of Rs.1,48,00,500/- and in pursuant to the confirmation of the sale, the purchaser has deposited an amount of Rs.1.48,00,500/- at the time of auction on 18/2/2008. It is submitted that though the respondent No.2 has paid the aforesaid huge amount, he is not able to enjoy the property purchased by him because of completely mischievous litigations instituted by the petitioner. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Revision Application.
6.00. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the impugned order has been passed by the learned executing court ast the stage of confirmation of the sale i.e. under Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, at the relevant time, the learned Executing Court was considering the question with respect to confirmation of sale of the properties which was sold in execution proceedings in a court auction. It cannot be disputed that Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides a complete procedure while considering the execution proceedings and every objections are required to be raised at appropriate stage and proceedings as provided under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present proceedings, the petitioner - judgement debtor has raised number of objections by raising number of alleged irregularities, as recorded hereinabove, which were required to be raised at appropriate stages i.e. at the stage of attaching the suit property and/or at the time of putting the suit proerty to auction or even at the stage of auction. Even an application to set aside the sale can be raised on the ground as provided under Order 21 Rule 89 and Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as stated hereinabove and it is an admitted position that at that time the petitioner - judgement debtor had not raised any objection either at the stage of auction / sale or even as provided under Order 21 Rule 89 or Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure and only thereafter when it was found that no application is made under Order 21 Rule 89 and Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure and when the learned executing court was considering the confirmation of the sale of the property in question as provided under Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at that stage the petitioner herein has raised objections and even some of the objections have been raised by the petitioner herein for the first time before this Court. Under the circumstances, when earlier no application was made and no objections were raised against the sale / auction as provided under Order 21 Rule 89 and Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure and no objections were raised earlier at appropriate stage at the time of attaching the suit property and/or proclamation etc. it is not open now for the petitioner to raise objection at the stage of Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the circumstances, when it has been found by the learned Executing Court that no application is made under Order 21 Rule 89 or Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter when the learned executing has confirmed the sale by the impugned order, it cannot be said that the learned Executing Court has committed any error and/or illegality which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. As stated above, the petitioner - judgement debtor was required to raise objections which are raised in the present Revision Application at appropriate stages as provided under Order 21 and once the property is sold in auction, application to set aside the sale can be made by the judgement debtor only on the grounds as provided under Order 21 Rule 89 and Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on the grounds stated in the said provision only. At the stage of proceedings under Order 21 Rule 89 and Rule 90 or Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, other objections, if any, which were not raised at appropriate stages, cannot be raised thereafter once the property is put to auction and sold and all other objections cannot be raised at the stage of Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure i.e. while making order confirming the sale.
6.01. Now, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the property in question is required to be put to auction afresh so that maximum price can be fetched as per the market price is concerned, the same cannot be accepted at this stage. It is required to be noted that the auction for sale of the property was held in the year 2008 and the purchaser – respondent No.2 herein has deposited a sum of Rs.1,48,00,500/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Eight Lacs Five Hundred only) way back in the year 2008, however, the purchaser – respondent No.2 is not in a position to enjoy the property and waiting to enjoy the fruits of the property. In these subsequent years, price must have been increased but that itself cannot be a ground to order for re- auction.
6.02. Now, so far as the reliance placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyendrain Bajoria and another (supra) as well as in the case of Desh Bandhu Gupta (supra) are concerned, the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the present case and/or shall not be of any assistance to the petitioner herein. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the impugned order passed by the learned executing Court at the stage of Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure i.e. while passing order of confirmation of the sale and it has been found that no application was filed / no objections were raised by the petitioner - judgement debtor as provided under Order 21 Rule 89 or Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure and/or even earlier at appropriate stage.
7.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Criminal Revision Application fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Ad- interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik