LAW FOR ALL

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 136-Attachment order-Property falling outside The jurisdiction of the issuing authority-Procedure for executions-Non-compliance with- Attachment challenged as invalid-Held, the non-compliance wilt not invalidate the attachment order as such since defect in the procedure could be cured-Order 38 Rules S and 7, Order 38 Rule 5(1) (as amended by Amending Act, 1976) and Section 136- Difference between. Auction sale-Execution proceedings-Challenge on ground of insufficiency of consideration--Held, mere Inadequacy of consideration is not a ground for setting aside Court sale. In a money suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff certain property of the defendant falling in another district was attached. The order was sent directly to Subordinate Judge, and not through District Judge of the concerned district. After ex-parte decree of the suit in execution proceedings, the property was auction-sold and was purchased by the appellant-decree holder. Respondents filed a case for release of the land from attachment as they had purchased the property from the judgment debtor. The case of the respondents was rejected by the execution Court. Respondents filed Revision Petition before High Court contending that the attachment of property by the appellant-decree holder was not in accordance with Section 136 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and that since the agreements for sale of the property were prior to the attachment, the subsequent attachment would not prevail over the sale deeds executed pursuant to the agreements of sate; and that the price, at which the appellant purchased the property in auction sale, was not adequate. High Court, on the ground of non-compliance of procedure laid down in Section 136 C.P.C, set aside the auction sale and allowed the Revision Petition. Hence this appeal.