2017(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2141 : 2017 LawHerald.org 1197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
C.R. No. 3536 of 2017
Munsha Singh
  1. State Bank of India & Anr.
Decided on 30/05/2017
For the Petitioner:             Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21 R.99–Execution of Decree-Auction Sale-Auction of entire landPlea of the petitioner that auction of part of the land could have satisfied the decree is without any substanceIt would be virtually impossible for the trial court to identify a particular area of the land and put the same to auction–Only a clearly demarcated piece of land is likely to fetch bidders-lf the land fetches higher value, after satisfying the decree, balance amount would naturally go to the judgment debtor.
CASE CITED:
  1. Balakrishnan v. Malaiyandi Konar 2006 AIR (SC) 1458. (Para 1)
JUDGMENT
Mr. Rajan Gupta J.:- Present revision petition is directed against the order whereby sale of land measuring 34 kanals 10 marlas has been directed by court below in execution of a money decree passed against the petitioner-Judgment Debtor. Primarily order has been challenged on the ground that sale of lesser area of land could have satisfied the decree: Executing court, thus gravely erred in directing auction of the entire land. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment reported as Balakrishnan vs. Malaiyandi Konar 2006 AIR (SC) 1458 in support of his contention.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
  1. It appears that on a suit filed by respondent-bank, a decree for recovery of amount of Rs.8,99,992/- aiongwith interest @13.25% was passed in favour of the bank. This order attained finality. Bank thereafter filed execution application before the Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Fazilka. It claimed recovery of amount of Rs.10,77,406/-. The executing court directed public auction of land measuring 34 kanals 10 marlas belonging to the petitioner. Plea of the petitioner that auction of part of the land could have satisfied the decree is without any substance. It would be virtually impossible for the trial court to identify a particular area of the land and put the same to auction. Only a clearly demarcated piece of land is likely to fetch bidders. Needless to observe that money decree is of no value unless it is executed. In instant case if the land fetches higher value, after satisfying the decree, balance amount would naturally go to the Judgement Debtor. Judgment in Balakrishnan’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case as the land which has been put to auction (34 kanals 10 marlas) was attached by the court below earlier. It would not be possible for the executing court to segregate a particular portion thereof. Besides, it is not know as to what amount the land in question is likely to fetch during auction. In my considered view no fault can be found by the procedure adopted by the executing court. Revision petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.