Firstly, I take up the plea of learned counsel for the appellant that the application filed by the bank was barred by limitation. It is not disputed that the application was moved beyond the period of limitation. However, the relevant fact to be seen is that the auction was conducted in violation of order of the Executing Court dated 01.05.2009, whereby the minimum price of land, put to auction, was fixed. In such eventuality, the Executing Court was required to take suo-moto action to cancel the auction proceedings. It was lapse on the part of the Executing Court while allowing deposit of 75% of auction price and registration of the sale deed without taking note of the order dated 01.05.2009. The act of the auction purchaser putting the property to auction in violation of order of the Executing Court cannot be defended on the ground that the application moved by the bank was beyond period of limitation. The citations referred by learned counsel for the appellant are on different set of facts and circumstances, as such, are of no help to advance his submissions. This submission of learned counsel for the appellant that vide order dated 04.09.2009, the order dated 01.05.2009 was modified, also has no substance as the perusal of this order shows that order dated 01.05.2009 was never modified. Only liberty was given to the decree holder to participate in the auction proceedings and to arrange bidders. The mentioning of word “failing which it will have to face consequences” in order dated 4.09.2009 nowhere signifies that the Executing Court had reviewed its order or given concession to Court auctioneer to sell the land at price lesser than fixed vide order dated 01.05.2009.
