Order: P.S. Rana, J. 1. Present civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against order dated 9.9.2002 passed by learned District Judge Mandi (H.P.) in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 202 of 2000 filed in execution petition No. 15 of 1997 titled HPFC vs. Sarwan Automobiles. Brief facts of the case 2. M/s Sarwan Automobiles Shop village Barchhawar Sarkaghat District Mandi H.P. through its sole proprietor Sarwan Kumar applied for grant of loan to the tune of Rs. 316000/- (Rupees three lacs sixteen thousand only) for construction of factory and to purchase the machinery. It is pleaded that H.P. Financial Corporation Shimla sanctioned the loan of Rs. 190000/- (Rupees one lac ninety thousand only) and mortgage deed of immovable property comprised in Khata No. 81 min Khatauni No. 216 min Khasra No. 1119 situated in village Barachhwar P.O. and Tehsil Sarkaghat District Mandi H.P. was executed. Loanee did not pay the loan amount within time and thereafter H.P. Financial Corporation Shimla filed petition under Section 31 of H.P. State Financial Corporation Act 1951 for recovery of loan amount. Learned District Judge Mandi passed order for recovery of Rs. 300626/- (Rupees three lacs six hundred twenty six only) with costs and interest upto 31.8.1993 and further ordered that M/s Sarwan Automobiles shop will liable to pay interest at the rate of 16½% with half yearly rests. Learned District Judge further affirmed interim order dated 2.12.1993 restraining Sarwan Kumar proprietor M/s Sarwan Automobiles from transferring or removing the machinery plant and other equipments installed in factory. Learned District Judge Mandi further ordered for sale of mortgaged property mentioned in mortgage deed Ext.PB placed on record qua land measuring 1.52 hectares situated in village Barchhwar Tehsil Sarkaghat District Mandi H.P. and also ordered for sale of factory building, fixtures, fitting including electric installation and also plant and machinery described in Schedule B as security for the loan amount. Learned District Judge further ordered that Corporation would be at liberty to apply for sale after the expiry of period of appeal. 3. Thereafter H.P. Financial Corporation filed execution petition No. 15 of 1997. Thereafter sale of half share of Sarwan comprised in Khasra No. 1119 old Khasra No. 1162 new siutuated in village Barchhwar Tehsil Sarkaghat District Mandi H.P. measuring 0-01-52 hectares was auctioned. 3. Thereafter H.P. Financial Corporation filed execution petition No. 15 of 1997. Thereafter sale of half share of Sarwan comprised in Khasra No. 1119 old Khasra No. 1162 new siutuated in village Barchhwar Tehsil Sarkaghat District Mandi H.P. measuring 0-01-52 hectares was auctioned. Thereafter Daljeet Kumar auction purchaser purchased the share of Sarwan Kumar on dated 25.3.2000 in consideration amount of Rs. 354000/- (Rupees three lacs fifty four thousand only) being the highest bidder and deposited 1/4th of total amount on the same day. Thereafter on 4.4.2000 Daljeet Kumar auction purchaser filed application under Order 21 Rule 90 and Section 47 of CPC before learned District Judge Mandi pleaded therein that half share of Sarwan Kumar in mortgaged property comprised in Khasra No. 1162 was to the extent of 0-01-72 hectares but when proclaimation of sale by public auction was issued by Court under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC then less area was shown as 0-01-52 hectares. Auction purchaser pleaded therein that auction proceedings be cancelled and amount deposited by auction purchaser be refunded to him or area of auction of immovable property be enhanced to 0-01-72 hectares and time to deposit rest of auctioned money be extended. 4. Per contra response filed on behalf of H.P. State Financial Corporation Shimla pleaded therein that Sarwan had mortgaged his half share with H.P. State Financial Corporation Shimla comprised in Khasra No. old 1119 and 1162 new situated in village Barchhwar Tehsil Sarkaghat District Mandi. It is pleaded that when final order was passed by learned District Judge Mandi (H.P.) then area was mentioned as 0-01-52 hectares and in final order of learned District Judge area of mortgaged land was no where shown as 0-01-72 hectares and prayer for dismissal of application sought. 5. Learned District Judge on 22.3.2002 framed following issues:- 1. Whether auction and sale are liable to be cancelled as alleged? OPA 2. Whether applicant is entitled to the refund of the auction money deposited by him? OPA 3. Relief. Learned District Judge Mandi decided issue No.1 in affirmative and held that his predecessor on 16.5.2000 held that full amount of auction money was not deposited by auction purchaser as provided under Order 21 Rule 85 CPC and held that sale in favour of auction purchaser is nonest and liable to be set aside. Learned District Judge Mandi (HP) decided issue No. 2 in negative. Learned District Judge Mandi (HP) decided issue No. 2 in negative. Learned District Judge Mandi dismissed the application filed by auction purchaser namely Daljit Kumar on 9.9.2002. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 9.9.2002 revisionist filed the present civil writ petition. 7. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist No.1 and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-revisionists Nos. 4 and 5 and Court also perused entire record carefuly. 8. Following points arise for determination in civil revision petition:- 1. Whether civil revision is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition? 2. Relief. 9. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons 9.1 Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that as per report of halqua patwari placed on record share of Sarwan Kumar was 0-01-72 hectares and not 0-01-52 hectares and on this ground revision petition be accepted is answered accordingly for reasons hereinafter mentioned. When the final order was passed by learned District Judge Mandi H.P. on 3.6.1996 in petition No. 3 of 1994 titled H.P. Financial Corporation vs. M/s Sarwan Automobiles Shop learned District Judge has specifically mentioned that only share measuring 1.52 hectares would be auctioned from old Khasra No. 1119 situated in village Barchhwar Tehsil Sarkaghat District Mandi. It is held that executing Court legally cannot modify the final order of competent authority of law. In present case auction purchaser did not file any application for modification of original order passed by learned District Judge Mandi dated 3.6.1996 announced in petition No. 3 of 1994. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that revisionist could not deposit the remaining auction amount because correction application was filed before executing court by auction purchaser within fifteen days and on this ground revision petition be accepted is decided accordingly for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that executing Court was not legally competent to modify the original order of learned District Judge passed in petition No. 3 of 1994 titled HPFC vs. M/s Sarwan Automobiles Shop. In original petition No. 3 of 1994 it was directed by learned District Judge Mandi in positive manner that only 1.52 hectares of mortaged land comprised in Khasra No. 1119 situated in village Barchhwar would be auctioned by way of sale. In original petition No. 3 of 1994 it was directed by learned District Judge Mandi in positive manner that only 1.52 hectares of mortaged land comprised in Khasra No. 1119 situated in village Barchhwar would be auctioned by way of sale. Auction purchaser came to know about less area after auction and thereafter applied before executing Court for correction of area. It is proved on record that full details of immovable property which was to be auctioned was specifically mentioned in positive manner in Annexure A Schedule-I. Court has perused Annexure-A Schedule-I carefully and there is recital in Annexure-A Schedule-I that land measuring 0-01-52 hectares comprised in Khasra No. 1119 situated in village Barchhwar Tehsil Sarkaghat District Mandi would be auctioned. Court is of the opinion that auction purchaser was under legal obligation before giving bid at the time of auction to peruse Annexure-A Schedule-I. Area of auctioned land was notified to the general public prior to auction of mortgaged property. 11. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that halqua patwari has specifically mentioned in his report that half share of Sarwan in Khasra No. old 1119 and new 1162 was 0-01-72 hectares and on this ground revision petition be accepted is also decided accordingly. Court is of the opinion that report of halqua patwari would not automatically modify the final order of learned District Judge Mandi (HP) passed in petition No. 3 of 1994 decided on 3.6.1996. Auction purchaser did not apply at any point of time to modify the final order dated 3.6.1996 passed by learned District Judge Mandi in petition No. 3 of 1994 titled HPFC vs. M/s Sarwan Automobile Shop. Hence it is held that report of halqua patwari would not automically modify the final order passed by learned District Judge in petition No. 3 of 1994. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned executing Court did not consider the fact that matter stood compromised between HPFC vs. M/s Sarwan Automobiles on 25.4.2001 and execution petition was dismissed by learned District Judge Mandi as one time settlement is also decided accordingly for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned executing Court did not consider the fact that matter stood compromised between HPFC vs. M/s Sarwan Automobiles on 25.4.2001 and execution petition was dismissed by learned District Judge Mandi as one time settlement is also decided accordingly for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that auction of immovable mortgaged property was conducted on 25.3.2000 and it is also proved on record that auction purchaser filed application under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Section 47 CPC on 4.4.2000 within fifteen days after auction. It is proved on record that as per certificate given by halqua patwari the share of Sarwan in Khasra No. old 1119 new 1162 was 0-01-72 hectares. 13 It is proved on record that during the pendency of disposal of application filed by auction purchaser H.P. Financial Corporation filed application on 25.4.2001 pleaded therein that one time settlement has been executed inter se HPFC and M/s Sarwan Automobiles Shop to the tune of Rs. 350000/- (Rupees three lacs fifty thousand only). Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of HPFC submitted that Corporation has received the amount to the tune of Rs. 350000/- (Rupees three lacs fifty thousand only) as final settlement inter se HPFC and M/s Sarwan Automobiles Shop and prayed that execution petition be disposed of accordingly. Thereafter learned District Judge on 25.4.2001 dismissed the application as partly satisfied. It was held in case reported in AIR 1957 Orissa 257 titled Raghunath Lenka vs. Karunakar Rout and another that forfeiture of deposited amount under Order 21 Rule 86 CPC is discretion of Court. It was held that in old Code the words ‘shall be forfeited’ was mentioned in Rule 86 but now word ‘shall’ has been substituted by word ‘may if the Court thinks fit’ in Rule 86. It was held that executing Court after taking into consideration the circumstances should exercise judicial discretion in the matter of forfeiture. 14. Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in case reported in AIR 2003 HP 63 titled United Commercial Bank vs. Mani Ram and others held that forfeiture of auctioned money is discretion of Court. Hon’ble High Court held that if there is default in payment of remaining auctioned money by auction purchaser and if reason given by auction purchaser is valid and credible then Courts are under legal obligation to consider the factors. Hon’ble High Court held that if there is default in payment of remaining auctioned money by auction purchaser and if reason given by auction purchaser is valid and credible then Courts are under legal obligation to consider the factors. Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in case cited supra forfeitted the half amount of deposited amount and directed that remaining consideration amount be refunded to auction purchaser. 15. In present case auction was conducted on 25.3.2000 and auction purchaser filed CMP No. 202 of 2000 under Order 21 Rule 90 and under Section 47 of CPC on 4.4.2000 within fifteen days of auction and same was disposed of on 9.9.2002. In the present case it is proved on record that sale by way of auction in favour of revisionist was set aside by learned District Judge Mandi H.P. on 17.7.2000 and fresh warrant of sale was issued in terms of order dated 11.1.2000 returnable for 29.9.2000. Fresh proclaimation at the spot was ordered for 17.8.2000 and fresh auction order was issued for 18.9.2000. It is proved on record that fresh auction purchaser was Lekh Raj. It is proved on record that executing Court was to exercise fresh sale proceedings in accordance with law. It is proved on record that subsequent auction purchaser namely Lekh Raj deposited amount to the tune of Rs.133500/- (Rupees one lac thirty three thousand five hundred only) on 29.9.2000. It is proved on record that thereafter objections were filed by H.P. Financial Corporation and serious allegations were levelled against Shri Govind Ram Bailiff. It is proved on record that on 30.11.2000 learned executing Court censured conduct of Bailiff. Thereafter on 25.4.2001 H.P. Financial Corporation withdraw execution petition on the ground of one time settlement inter-se H.P. Financial Corporation and M/s Sarwan Automobile. 16. Hence it is held that forfeiture of 1/4th of entire amount of auction purchaser to the tune of Rs.88500/- (Rupees eighty eight thousand five hundred only) is harsh in nature. In the ends of justice it requires modification. It is held that interest of justice will be met if half of amount to the tune of Rs.44250/- (Rupees forty four thousand two hundred fifty only) is forfeited. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2 (Relief) 17. In view of findings upon point No.1 civil revision is partly allowed. In the ends of justice it requires modification. It is held that interest of justice will be met if half of amount to the tune of Rs.44250/- (Rupees forty four thousand two hundred fifty only) is forfeited. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2 (Relief) 17. In view of findings upon point No.1 civil revision is partly allowed. It is ordered that only half of deposited amount will be forfeited and amount to the tune of Rs.44250/- (Rupees forty four thousand two hundred fifty only) will be refunded to revisionist/auction purchaser alongwith upto date interest. Order of learned executing Court dated 9.9.2002 is modified to this extent only. No order as to costs. Revision petition is disposed of. File of learned executing Court alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwtih. Civil Revision is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.