C.M. No, 6-C of 2001 ' Through this application under Order 47, rule 1 read with section 151, C.P.C. The petitioner seeks the review of a judgment passed by this Court in E.F.A. No,485 of 2001, dated 13-11-2001.
2. Through that judgment the aforesaid E.F.A. Was partly allowed and the judgment-debtor was directed to pay the decretal amount within 30 days from the date of order alongwith profits to be calculated till the date on which the payment was made. It was further directed that within a period of next 30 days the appellant will deposit before the Executing Court profits on Rs,22,00,000 (the amount paid by the purchaser as consideration price for the property in question) calculated from 15-1-2000 till the date of its payment at the rate of 13%. Lastly it was directed that the amount, If so deposited shall be receivable by the purchaser.
3. In the petition the judgment-debtor has repeated the submissions which he earlier made before this Court. On these submissions and on consideration of the attending circumstances we allowed the petition in the above terms only in order to provide the judgment-debtor another opportunity to save his property. During the proceedings in the main appeal it was alleged that the Court auctioneer had played a fraud and had disposed of the property of the judgment-debtor for a sum of Rs,22,00,000 only while its market value was not less than Rs,20 million. That order which was made on his request was never complied with. Even during the proceedings on this review application we allowed him another opportunity to fetch a buyer of Rs, 5 million to save his property which had allegedly been disposed of dirt cheap by the Court auctioneer. However, the judgment-debtor on at least 2/3 occasions not only sought adjournments on one excuse or the other but finally engaged another counsel who was again allowed time till today to produce a buyer of the property.
4. Today the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor has again requested for extension in time which, keeping in view the previous conduct of the petitioner appears unjustified. The purchaser- respondent made the payment of the purchase price more than one year back and since then he is being denied the possession of the property without any justifiable cause. We have been considerate to the judgment-debtor only in order to see that he gets the best price for his property.
However, instead of availing that opportunity he is attempting to delay the proceedings in one guise or the other.
5. None of the conditions necessary for review of the order as contemplated in the aforesaid provisions of C.P.C. Having been brought home, we will refuse to grant this review application.
6. Dismissed.
Review .