Vishnudas M. Bhat (Deceased) by L.Rs. vs Govindray M. Bhat

Petitioner''s learned Advocate submits that under the terms of the decree that is sought to be executed, the whole of the property comprising of Survy No. 380, Plot No. 24 in Susagadi Village, Bhatkal Taluk, which comprises of a house along with some area of land was required to be sold if the petitioners who are the heirs of the original judgment-debtor did not pay the amount prescribed in the decree within the time stipulated therein. Admittedly, the amount was not paid and the Court therefore issued a sale proclamation. The present petitioner applied for stay of the sale which was rejected by the Court and the Court also accepted the bid of the action purchaser for Rs. 3,05,000/-. According to the petitioner''s learned Advocate, the whole of the property was not put up for sale and it was only a portion thereof or to quote his words, only that part which the petitioner was occupying was put up for sale and he submits that having regard to the prevailing prices, that had the whole of the property being offered for sale, that the amount which it would have fetched would have been much higher. The manner in which this proceeding has been conducted in the Trial Court leaves much to be desired and I do not find on record any objections either with regard to the sale proclamation or for that matter any indication from the petitioners as to what according to them should have been a fair realisable price. This is a very sad reflection and the manner in which this case has been conducted and to my mind, the responsibility lies entirely on the persons who are handling this litigation. The grievance that is now sought to be made before me is that having regard to what happened, a fresh proclamation ought to be issued specifying that the whole of the property is for sale and that the Court should endeavour to ensure that the fair and proper market value is realised. It is not the responsibility of the learned Judge to conduct market surveys and to act as an estate agent for purposes of fixing property prices but it is necessary that the parties or those who conduct the cases on their behalf should bring necessary material before the Court to establish their contention that the value of the property is of a prescribed amount. In the absence of this, merely filing revision petitions and making grievances cannot be permitted.

Normally, I would have dismissed this petition outright except for the fact that this Court has earlier issued rule in the matter and the case is already four years old. Undoubtedly, the property values will have changed and it would therefore be unjust to the parties if bids that are four years old were to be accepted at this point of time. It is in this background that the following directions are issued: -

(a) That the executing Court shall give the petitioners time up to 1-11-1996 to pay up the decretal amount if they so desire.

(b) The matter shall be taken up for orders by the Trial Court on 3-11-1996 when the parties are directed to appear before the Court.

(c) If the decretal amount has been paid by then, the decree shall be marked as satisfied and no further amount will be necessary. If however this has not been done, the Court shall issue a fresh proclamation after revoking the earlier one clearly specifying that the whole of the property is for sale.

(d) The Court shall also ensure that due and adequate publicity is given to the same, that the upset price shall be in consonance with the fair market value which the parties shall satisfy the Court about if they so desire and that the sale is conducted and completed without any further delay.

(e) The earlier bidder shall be eligible to take part and if he is the successful bidder on this occasion, the amount earlier deposited by him shall be adjusted against the deposits to be made.

(f) It is clarified that if the earlier bidder is not interested in taking part in the sale or if no sale is necessary, then the amount that has earlier been deposited by him along with whatever interest it has earned, if any, shall be refunded to that party.

(g) It is also directed that if the petitioners exercise their option to satisfy the decree by paying the decretal amount, that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- with interest accrued, if any, shall be adjusted against the amount payable by them. This procedure shall be followed even if the sale takes place and the respondent''s share is required to be apportioned and paid to him.

With these directions, the civil revision petition which partially succeeds to stand disposed of. No costs. The pending I.As to stand disposed of.