' The respondent-Bank, brought a suit for recovery against the appellant, which was decreed. In execution of the decree, the property in question (shops and office), which were mortgaged with the bank, were put to auction and the respondent No,4, being the highest bidder, purchased the said property in auction, allegedly held on23-2-2000; his bid was to the tune of Rs.8,50,000, which amount has been duly deposited by the respondent No,4 with the Court, The appellant, moved an application under Order 21, rules 66, 67, 73 and 90, C.P.C. And one of the objections raised in the petition is, that no auction at all was conducted at the spot on 23-2-2000; the entire proceedings in this regard are fake and fraudulent; besides some other objections about the irregularity in the proclamation and conduct of sale, have also been taken. The learned Banking Court, dismissed the application and confirmed the sale in favour of the respondent through the order dated 9-7-2001, hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends, that as the very conduct of the auction on the date given above, was disputed by the appellant, thus, in such situation, this factual controversy could only be resolved by the Court, after framing of issues and enabling the parties to produce evidence.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. Obviously, if the auction has not taken place as alleged; there is no valid sale in favour of respondent No,4, which could be confirmed. Thus, this aspect of the matter could only be resolved by the learned Banking Court, after framing of issues and enabling the parties to lead evidence. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. The learned Banking Court is directed to frame the issues, arising out of the pleadings of the parties on the date on which, the parties are directed to appear before the Court, and decide the matter within a period of three months thereafter. The parties are directed to appear before the Banking Court on 15-5-2003.
' This appeal is accordingly allowed.