Jhaldhari Singh vs Pershad Bharti and Others

Adami, J.—It appears that, during proceedings for the execution of a decree the five properties of the judgment-debtors were proclaimed for sale and valuations were fixed for each property, the amounts being Rs. 1,050, Rs. 454, Rs. 588, Rs. 1,805 and Rs. 650. The proclamation was duly served and the sale was fixed for the 21st April 1925. The decree-holder was given leave to bid at the sale, but the condition on which he was allowed to bid was that he was to bid up to the sums fixed by the Court. That order is dated the 22nd April 1925. Bidding commenced and the decree-holder bid Rs. 175 for the first property put up for sale.

The present petitioner was present at the sale and bid against the decree-holder. His bid was Rs. 200 and was the highest. Similarly in the case of the four other properties the decree-holder bid Rs. 75, Rs. 90, Rs. 150 and Rs. 135 respectively of the properties, whereas the present petitioner bid against him Rs. 85, Rule 100, Rs. 175 and Rs. 150 and his bid in each case was the highest. The result was that when the bid-sheet was put up to the Munsif, he finding that the decree-holder had not obeyed the order that he was to hid up to the amounts fixed by Court declared that there had been a default and dismissed the execution case.

Against this order of dismissal the petitioner contends that as there was an auction sale and he bid the highest amount for each of the properties he was entitled to have these properties knocked down to him at his highest bid. The fact that the decree-holder did not observe the condition on which he was allowed to bid at the sale could not, to my mind, do more than take away the validity of the decree-holder''s own bid, but I cannot see how it can affect the validity of the bids by the petitioner who was an independent bidder at the sale. It is doubtful whether the Munsif had any power to compel the decree-holder to bid the full amounts shown under the valuation in the sale proclamation. In the case of Badri Sahu and Others Vs. Pandit Peare Lal Misra and Others, , Mullick, J., held that there was no provision of law compelling a decree-holder to bid up to any sum which may be fixed by the Court.

The valuation in the sale proclamation is intended primarily for the protection of the judgment-holder and for giving information to the bidders at the auction sale.

The learned Judge held that

if in a sale property published and conducted the highest bid whether of the decree-holder or any other person, is some figure below the figure given in the sale proclamation it is not competent to the Court to compel the decree-holder to bid higher than that highest bid.

In the present case we are concerned with the bid of an outside bidder. The sale was properly conducted and the petitioner was entitled to have the property knocked down to him as he made the highest bid. The fact that the decree-holder did not fulfil the condition imposed upon him did not invalidate the sale so far as the present petitioner is concerned. The order of the lower Court must be set aside and the application must be allowed. The petitioner''s bid for each of the properties must he accepted. Hearing fee: 2 gold mohurs.