Advance Industries vs State Bank of India

Ashok Bhan, J.—M/s. Advance Industries, a partnership concern (hereinafter referred to as the judgment debtors) took loan from plaintiff Bank (hereinafter referred to as the decree holder) much before 1970 and failed to repay the same. Decree holder filed a suit for recovery of the loan. The suit was decreed on 24.4.1970 for a sum of Rs 1,59,209.41 alongwith interest. Appeal against the said judgment and decree was dismissed on 1.4.1981.

Decree holder took out execution. The property in dispute was put to auction on 6.9.1985 and the same was purchased by respondents 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as the auction purchasers) for sum of Rs. 76,000/ and odd. Objections to the auction sale were filed on 22.10.1985. Objection petition filed by the judgment debtor was dismissed on 18.11.1988, for want of evidence. Judgment debtor filed an appeal in this Court which was numbered as FAO No. 2 of 1989 and disposed of by M.S. Liberhan, J. on 24.1.1989, with the following observations:

"In my considered view the appeal is premature inasmuch as the objections have not been finally disposed of though an observation was made that because of the lack of evidence of the objector the objection petition is dismissed. However, from the operative part of the judgment, it is clear that the case was adjourned to 3.12.1988 the appeal is dismissed as premature with an observation that the learned SubJudge will keep in view that the mandatory provisions of order 21 CPC have been complied with before confirming the sale. The appellant shall be at liberty to prefer the appeal when the objection petition is finally disposed of. In view of my above observations the appeal is disposed of :

The sale was finally confirmed by SubJudge, 1st Class, Bahadurgarh on 12.5.1989, against which the present revision petition has been filed.

The execution Court has recorded a finding that the property was put to auction after observing all legal formalities such as proclamation on the spot, putting notices on Court''s notice board and informing the general public etc. The terms of auction were declared on the spot. Due publication was given in the area. Warrant of sale was issued and a report was received and the objections were filed on 25.10.1985. The judgment debtor did not bother to produce a single witness for 31/2 years and, therefore, the objection petition was dismissed for want of evidence on. 18.11.1988.

Learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtor has argued that no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the executing Court and the points raised by the judgment debtors have not been noticed by the executing Court in its order. I have gone through the grounds of revision of the petitioner. It has nowhere been stated in the grounds that the points raised by the judgment debtors have not been dealt with by the executing Court. Under the circumstances, it has to be presumed that whatever points were argued before the executing Court, the same have been noticed by it and dealt with. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the property was once put to auction for a sum of Rs. one lac before the present auction which was not accepted by the Courtauctioneer himself, being of less value, and, therefore, the executing Court has erred in accepting the bid of the auction purchasers for a sum of Rs. 76,000/ only which is grossly undervalued; that market value of the property is more than Rs. five lacs at present; that there were certain material irregularities in the conducting of sale and, therefore, the auction held on 6.9.1985, is liable to be set aside.

I do not find any force in either of the submissions. The judgment debtor did not bother to produce a single witness for 31/2 years. No foundation of facts has been laid by leading any evidence that the property has been undervalued or that any fraud has been committed in the sale of the property. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, failed to show any order passed by the Court rejecting the earlier bid of Rs. one lac for the same property. Except for the bald assertion made at the time of arguments, there is no material on record to show that earlier this very property was put to auction for a sum of Rs. one lac and the said bid was not accepted by the Court. If the judgment debtor was not ready to adduce evidence to establish his allegation by leading evidence then there is no alternative left with the Court but to dismiss the objection petition. Learned counsel in relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Navalkha and sons v. Sri Ramayana Das and others, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 2037, stressed that in every case it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself that having regard to the market value of the property, the price offered is reasonable and unless the Court is satisfied about the adequacy of the price the act of confirmation of sale would not be a proper exercise of judicial discretion. There is no quarrel whatsoever with this proposition of law but the judgment debtor in spite of repeated opportunities given to him failed to lead any evidence to show that the property had been undervalued or that any fraud had been committed. Judgment debtor further failed to lead any evidence to show that the market value of the property was more than the price offered by the auction purchasers.

No other point was raised.

For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.