Laxmi Narayan Singh vs Umesh Pd. Agrawal and Others

S.N. Mishra, J.—The purchaser is the Petitioner in this civil revision application against the order dated. 21.7.93 by which the court has refused to set aside the compromise arrived at between the judgment debtor and the auction purchasers namely the Petitioner. It appears that the opposite party No. 2, the Gaya Municipality filed a suit for realisation of the certain amount by way of tax, which was registered as Money Suit No. 35 of 1960 against the Defendant. The money suit was decreed and the holding in question, which is a three storyeed building in the town of Gaya, was put on auction sale in Execution case No. 129 of 1970. The Petitioner auction purchaser has appeared in the execution proceeding and sought permission to participate in the auction sale. The auction took place on 3.6.1987 wherein both the decree holder as well as the Petitioner on 3.6.89 were the bidder. The Petitioner offered Rs. 19,810.80 paise and the bid was accepted by the executing court and the aforesaid bid amount was deposited in two instalments and the sale was confirmed on 29.7.1987.

On 17.3.1989, the judgment debtor filed an application purported to be under Order 21 Rule 59 for setting aside the sale, which was registered as Misc. Case1 No. 3 of 1989. The Petitioner filed an objection and also prayed for delivery of possession. On 6.7.91, the judgment debtor filed a rejoinder on the ground that though the sale certificate was signed on 21.1.1988, yet the auction purchaser had not applied for delivery of possession for three years. It is alleged that on 9.8.91, a joint compromise petition was filed duly signed by the Petitioner as well as the judgment debtor, which was accepted on the report of the Saristedar dated 13.1.91, but it appears that on 21.2.91, the auction purchaser namely the Petitioner filed an application challenging the alleged compromise on the ground of fraud.

The Court on consideration of the materials and evidence on record has rejected the petition of the Petitioner and held that the compromise arrived at between parties are legal and valid.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the order impugned op the ground that the very objection filed by the judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 59 for setting aside the sale is barred by limitation in terms of Article 127 of the Limitation Act. It is further submitted that the provision of Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC does not apply to the execution proceeding and as such the compromise arrived at between him and the judgment debtor is wholly without jurisdiction. It is lastly submitted that there is no material before the Court to hold the compromise between the parties as valid one. In support of his contention learned Counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Mohan Lal Vs. Hari Prasad Yadav and Others, and in the case of Bihar State Sunni Waqf Board Vs. Syed Bashiruddin Ashraf and Others, .

The principle of law decided in the aforesaid decision is not in dispute. The real question involved in this civil revision application is whether the compromise arrived at between the parties is a valid one or by way of committing fraud. The Petitioner auction purchaser cannot challenge the confirmation of sale at this stage. The second submission itself goes against the interest of the Petitioner in as much as, the auction purchaser should not have entered into such compromise. As regards the findings of the court below I am of the view that while passing the impugned order, the court has relied upon the relevant materials, which were available on the record and come to a finding that the compromise arrived at between the judgment debtor and the auction purchaser namely the Petitioner is a valid one and cannot be interfered with at this, stage. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the materials on the record including the order under challenge, I do not find any illegality in the order, which is accordingly dismissed. No cost.