Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

JUDGMENT

The Standard Bank, now merged into Habib Bank (hereinafter called the respondent-Bank), Nowshera secured a decree in the sum of Rs. 9,072 with interest against the petitioner herein. The petitioner paid the principal amount through instalments and as he did not pay the interest of Rs. 5,810 due from him, the learned executing Court, vide order-sheet dated 22-12-1977, directed that his Bungalow No. 116, Risalpur Cantonment already attached be put to auction on 4-2-

1978 from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on 4-2-1978, as the auction bid of Rs. 35,000 of one Danish was highest, he paid 25 per cent. of that amount on the spot as required by Order XXI, rule 84. It may be noted here that according to this provision, the balance of the auction price was to be paid not later than 15 days of the date of auction. However. Danish applied before the Court for extension of time to deposit the balance amount and the Court granted extension to him and the case was fixed for 19-4-1978. On 19-4-1978, Danish the auction-purchaser, had paid the balance amount while the petitioner submitted an application in which he prayed that as he prepared to pay the decretal amount, the auction may be cancelled. Anis Ahmad etc. also filed an objection application. The case was posted to 27-4-1978, written replies were filed and the case was fixed for 6-5-1978 for arguments. On 13-51978, the counsel for the petitioner asked time for arguments. The case was posted to 13-5-1978. On 13-5-78, arguments were heard and the case posted to 18-5-1978 for order. On 18-5-1978 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was fixed for 21-5-1978. On 21-5-1978 both the counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondent-Bank/decree-holder were not present. The petitioner was also not present and the case was fixed for 23-5-1978. On 23-5-1978 no one was present on behalf of the petitioner and Anis Ahmad objector and so the Court rejected their applications and the case was fixed for 25-5-1978 for further proceedings. On 255-1978 the Court recorded an order that as the applications of the petitioner and Anis Ahmad have been rejected, the auction in favour of Danish is confirmed. The case was fixed for 30-5-1978 for further proceedings. The order-sheet of 30-5-1978 shows that the petitioner had filed ten applications respectively dated 19-4-1978 and 21-4-1978 for the restoration of the proceedings and the case was fixed for 4-61978, for the reply of the opposite-party. On 4-6-1978 written reply was filed and the case was posted to 12-6-1978 for arguments. On 12-b-1978, arguments were heard and the case was fixed for 18-6-1978 for order. On 18-6-1978, the Court had not recorded the order, as it was busy in other Court work and the case was posted for order to 20-6-1978. On 20-6-1978, the Court rejected the applications for the restoration of the proceedings repelling his plea that his absence on 23-5-1978 was not wilful but he was away in connection with his contract work. It is this order of 23-5-1978, which is impugned by the petitioner in the present revision petition.