Respondent No.1 Bank filed a suit for recovery against respondents Nos.2 and 3 which was decreed to the tune of Rs.2,44,599. In satisfaction of the decree, three mortgaged flats were directed to be put to auction. The present appellant and respondents Nos.4, 5 and 6 filed objections that they had already purchased the flats being unaware that those are under the lien of the Bank. These objections have been dismissed through the impugned order, but the learned Appellate Court without any reason has directed first to sell Flat No.9 through auction which belongs to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant states such order is discriminatory and would cause serious prejudice to the rights of the appellant, who is at par with the other objectors, but his property has been directed to be sold first and if the decree is satisfied, the other objector would go free.
2. Notice was issued to the respondents, but except the representative of the Bank none is present.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we find that there was no reason on the basis of which the flat of the appellant could he directed to be put to auction first, in fact, the Court should have directed the three objectors, either to deposit the decretal amount proportionately to save their property or the properties belonging to all of them should have put to auction simultaneously.
3. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned banking Court for passing a fresh order with regard to the execution of the decree.