JUDGMENT The appellant is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Mandsaur, Camp Garoth, in the matter of Civil Suit No. 07-A/1981 by which learned trial Judge dismissed the claim of respondent No. 1 (original plaintiff) for getting Rs. 10,280/- from respondent No. 1 and relief claimed from respondents 2 and 3. So also he issued directions to appellant to deliver possession of the suit land to respondent No. 1 as well as issued direction to respondent No. 4 to grant lease in favour of respondent No. 1 with a permission to construct the building. Few facts need to be stated for the purpose of unfolding the controversy. Respondent No. 4 - Municipal Council Bhanpura, had leased the suit land to appellant by auction for one year. After the said period was over, by a subsequent auction, the suit land was directed to be leased to respondent No. 1 after accepting Rs. 10,280/- from him. Respondent No. 1 was also permitted to construct over the suit land by respondent No. 4. While doing so, the physical possession of the suit land which was with the appellant, was not taken by respondent No. 4 by following due process of law. By the direction in the judgment and decree the appellant as well as respondent No. 1 have also been put to hardship. Respondent No. 1 was required to pay Rs. 10,280/- for the purpose of getting the lease and possession of the suit land but as the appellant was not dispossessed from the suit land by respondent No. 4 by following due process of law, he has also been put to hardship. On account of this, the appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the correctness, propriety and legality of the said decree and making a prayer for substitution of it by a proper and just decree. Shri P.K. Saxena learned Sr. counsel with Shri Ashish Gupta for the appellant and Shri B.L. Pavecha learned Sr. counsel with Shri Sunil Jain, have been heard. The tone of the argument of both the learned counsel makes it very clear that by the directions embodied in the judgment and decree both the appellant and the respondent No. 1 have been put to hardship. counsel with Shri Ashish Gupta for the appellant and Shri B.L. Pavecha learned Sr. counsel with Shri Sunil Jain, have been heard. The tone of the argument of both the learned counsel makes it very clear that by the directions embodied in the judgment and decree both the appellant and the respondent No. 1 have been put to hardship. Unless the appellant has been dispossessed by respondent No. 4 by following due process of law, respondent No. 1 can not be installed in the suit land as a lessee. However, he has been required to deposit the sum of Rs. 10,280/- as auction money with respondent No. 4 and that is lying with respondent No. 4 at the cost of respondent No. 1 who has been deprived of a lawful interest acruing on that amount. Before putting the suit land to auction it was necessary for respondent No. 4 to dispossess the appellant from the suit land by following due process of law and vacate him from the suit land. Without doing that, it was not proper of respondent No. 4 to put the suit land to auction. When the suit land was put to auction, it was possible that respondent No. 1 might have carried the impression that he would be getting the vacant possession of the suit land and therefore he might have been prompted to bid for the lease of suit land in the said auction. The auction was declared in favour of respondent No. 1 and he has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,280/- for the purpose of getting lease of the suit land, needless to say without vacant possession. On account of default on the part of respondent No. 4 - Municipal Council, Bhanpura, respondent No. 1 has been put to such a loss un-necessarily. The appellant is definitely entitled to retain his possession till he is not dispossessed by respondent No. 4 by following due process of law. He is not obliged to handover the possession of the suit land to respondent No. 4 when due process of law has not been followed by respondent No. 4. The learned trial Judge should have considered all the necessary important facts arising out of the matter while delivering the judgment and issuing directions embodied in the judgment and decree. He is not obliged to handover the possession of the suit land to respondent No. 4 when due process of law has not been followed by respondent No. 4. The learned trial Judge should have considered all the necessary important facts arising out of the matter while delivering the judgment and issuing directions embodied in the judgment and decree. Unfortunately, that has not been done and therefore, this appeal is the result of that. In the interest of justice the said judgment and decree will have to be set aside and substituted by a proper and just decree. Thus, the appeal is allowed. Respondent No. 4 is directed to follow due process of law for the purpose of vacating the appellant from the suit land if it so desires. Respondent No. 4 should refund Rs. 10,280/- forthwith to respondent No. 1 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date when the said amount has been deposited with respondent No. 4. It is made clear that respondent No. 1 would be at liberty to bid for auction if the suit land has been put to auction after following due process of law. Both the appellant and respondent No. 1 have been put to hardship on account of such improper and illegal act on the part of respondent No. 4. Therefore, it is directed that respondent No. 4 would pay the cost of the suit as well as the appeal. Respondent No. 2 and 3 have not contested this appeal, therefore, there can not be any question in either awarding or refusing the cost to them. Thus, the impugned decree stands substituted by this. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Counsel fee as per scales.