[2025:RJ-JP:10734] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 568/2025 1. Jhutha Son Of Revad, Resident Of Village Ankeshpura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Purchaser- Decreeholder) (Deceased During The Application Through Lrs.) 1/1. Smt. Bhuri Devi W/o Late Jhutha Choudhary, Resident Of Village Ankeshpura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur. 1/2. Akhairam Son Of Late Jhutha Choudhary, Resident Of Village Ankeshpura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur. 1/3. Sitaram Son Of Late Jhutha Choudhary, Resident Of Village Ankeshpura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur. 1/4. Smt. Ghisi W/o Rameshwar D/o Late Jhutha Choudhary, Resident Of Village Dabla Khurd, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. 1/5. Smt. Kailashi W/o Jagdish Mandaliya D/o Late Jhutha Choudhary, Resident Of Village Dabla Khurd, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. 1/6. Smt. Harfooli W/o Late Kailash D/o Late Jhutha Choudhary, Resident Of Village Ankeshpura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur. 1/7. Ghanshyam Son Of Late Kailash Son Of Late Jhutha Choudhary, Resident Of Village Ankeshpura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur. 1/8. Radheshyam Son Of Late Kailash Son Of Late Jhutha Choudhary, Resident Of Village Ankeshpura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur. ----Petitioners/Applicants Lrs. Of Deceased Jhutha Auctioned Purchaser Versus 1. State Bank Of India, Through Branch Vyavasthapak, Branch Manager, Sanganer Gate, Jaipur. ----Respondent/Decreeholder 2. Nathu Singh, (Died During Plaint) Son Of Om Singh Son Of Late Nathu Singh (Deceased) 2/1. Smt. Sheela Kanwar, Widow Of Om Singh 2/2. Jaisingh, Son Of Late Om Singh 2/3. Gayatri, D/o Late Om Singh [2025:RJ-JP:10734] (2 of 5) [CW-568/2025] 3. Janak Singh, Son Of Late Nathu Singh 4. Dallu Singh (Dalip Singh), Son Of Late Nathu Singh 5. Ishu Singh (Bharat Singh) Son Of Late Nathu Singh Respondents No. 2 To 5 Are Resident Of Village Bhojyada, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur. ----Respondents/Judgment Debtor For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Shanker Choudhary For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 10/03/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur (for brevity, “learned Executing Court”) in application No.5/2017, NCV No.17/2017 whereby, the application filed by the petitioners/ auction purchasers (for brevity, “petitioners”) under Order 21 Rule 94 CPC has been dismissed. The relevant facts in brief are that pursuant to final decree dated 01.04.1975 passed by a Civil Court in favour of the decree holder, the State Bank of India, when the judgment debtor Shri Nathu Singh failed to repay the outstanding loan amount, his agricultural land, which was mortgaged with the decree holder bank, was put to auction on 01.04.1979 wherein, Shri Jhutha- the predecessor the interest of the petitioners, stood highest bidder with a bid of Rs.23,450/-. 25% of the bid amount was deposited by him within time and he was given 15 days’ time to deposit the balance amount; but, he moved an application dated 04.05.1979 [2025:RJ-JP:10734] (3 of 5) [CW-568/2025] in the Executing Court seeking liberty to deposit the balance amount after release of the subject property from the ceiling as he came to know that it was hit by the provisions of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for brevity, “Ceiling Act, 1973”). However, no order was passed on the application. The execution application was dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 25.11.1988 for want of prosecution. Thereafter, on 18.03.2016, the petitioners filed an application under Order 21 Rule 94 CPC stating therein that since, the subject land was released from ceiling proceedings by the SDO, Chaksu vide order dated 18.02.2016, they were ready to deposit the balance 3/4th amount of the bid price and after deposing the same, sale certificate be issued in their favour. The aforesaid application has been dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order impugned dated 13.11.2024. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since, the subject land was hit by the Ceiling Act, 1973, the auction purchaser had filed an application on 04.05.1979 seeking permission to deposit the balance amount once the property was released from ceiling proceedings. He urged that since, after order of the SDO, Chaksu dated 18.02.2016, the subject property was released from ceiling proceedings, they were ready and willing to deposit the balance of 3/4th amount, but, learned Executing Court erred in dismissing their application ignoring and overlooking that the auction purchaser was justified in not depositing the balance bid amount in time on account of pendency of the ceiling proceedings. He, [2025:RJ-JP:10734] (4 of 5) [CW-568/2025] therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 30.11.2024 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by them under Order 21 Rule 94 CPC be allowed. Heard. Considered. While dismissing the application, the learned Executing Court has observed that the auction purchaser, after paying only 1/4th of the bid amount, neither deposited the balance 3/4th amount within the stipulated period nor, the time was extended by the Court. It was held that it was incorrectly mentioned in the application filed under Order 21 Rule 94 CPC that prayer of the auction purchaser to permit him to deposit the 3/4th amount after completion of the ceiling proceedings, was accepted by the learned Court. It was also held that after the auction purchaser had failed to deposit the balance amount, the judgment debtor has entered into a compromise with the decree holder bank, paid entire outstanding amount and received no dues certificate. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was held that after 37 years from the date of auction and in view of the supervening event, it was not to desirable to accept the prayer made by the petitioners as it may lead to several complications. This Court is in respectful agreement with the findings so recorded by the learned Executing Court. Indisputably, the auction purchaser, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, failed to deposit the balance 3/4th of the bid amount within the stipulated period and the time was never extended by the learned Executing Court. Although, he had moved an application to deposit the balance amount after completion of the ceiling proceedings but, no order was ever passed thereupon. It is also not disputed that [2025:RJ-JP:10734] (5 of 5) [CW-568/2025] pursuant to one time settlement scheme, the legal representatives of the judgment debtor- Shri Nathu Singh had deposited the complete outstanding amount with the decree holder bank way back in February, 2001 whereupon, no dues certificate was issued in their favour. In the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere, under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Executing Court based on appreciation of material on record. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J GAURAV/42