Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 343 (PNJ)

Sahib Singh v. Jagtar Singh

2012-02-27

L.N.MITTAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Auction purchaser Sahib Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 08.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, thereby dismissing petitioner’s application for extension of time to deposit the balance 75% of the auction amount. 2. Property of judgment debtors/respondents was auctioned on 21.12.2011 in execution petition filed by decree holder – State Bank of India (not party to the instant revision petition). Petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction. He deposited 1/4th of the auction amount on the spot and as per report of Naib Tehsildar, who conducted the auction, the petitioner was directed to deposit the balance 75% of the auction money in the Court before 07.01.2012. However, the petitioner moved application Annexure P-5 on 10.01.2012 for permitting him to deposit the remaining auction money. The said application has been dismissed by the Executing Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1, which is under challenge in this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 4. Order 21 Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) is reproduced hereunder :- “Time for payment in full of purchase-money :- The full amount of purchasemoney payable shall be paid by the purchaser into Court before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the sale of the property:” 5. According to this statutory provision, full amount of the purchase money had to be paid by the petitioner-auction purchaser in the Court before the Court closed on 15th day from sale of the property. The auction sale in this case took place on 21.12.2011, and therefore, according to this provision, auction money had to be deposited on or before 05.01.2012. Even according to report of Naib Tehsildar, who conducted the auction, the auction money had to be deposited in the Court before 07.01.2012 (not on or before 07.01.2012). However, petitioner moved application in the Executing Court on 10.01.2012 for depositing the balance auction money i.e. much beyond the period of 15 days stipulated under Order 21 Rule 85 CPC. Consequently, the Executing Court was left with no option but to dismiss the application of the petitioner-auction purchaser. 7. However, petitioner moved application in the Executing Court on 10.01.2012 for depositing the balance auction money i.e. much beyond the period of 15 days stipulated under Order 21 Rule 85 CPC. Consequently, the Executing Court was left with no option but to dismiss the application of the petitioner-auction purchaser. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that learned Presiding Officer was on leave since 04.01.2012 till 07.01.2012, and therefore, the application was moved on 10.01.2012, which was the next date of hearing in the execution proceedings. The contention does not help the petitioner. Even if the Presiding Officer of the Executing Court was on leave, the money could be deposited by seeking appropriate orders from the Duty Judge or even from the District Judge. In addition to it, the Presiding Officer of the Executing Court was not on leave on 09.01.2012, which was also a working day. However, the petitioner moved application on 10.01.2012. Order 21 Rule 85 CPC gives no discretion to the Executing Court to permit deposit of the auction money beyond the stipulated period of 15 days. Consequently, prayer of the petitioner to deposit the balance auction money after expiry of stipulated period of 15 days could not be accepted. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that it is a hard case and the petitioner has already deposited Rs.18,20,550/- as 25% of the auction money, and therefore, the petitioner would suffer great loss and injury and the Court, in exercise of inherent power under Section 151 CPC, should permit the petitioner-auction purchaser to deposit the balance auction money. The contention cannot be accepted. Inherent power under Section 151 CPC cannot be exercised in contravention of Order 21 Rule 85 CPC. 8. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that 25% of the auctioned property may be sold to the petitioner-auction purchaser. The contention is completely untenable and meritless and cannot be accepted. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Executing Court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner for permission to deposit the balance auction money beyond the statutory period of 15 days. Therefore, the impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine. ------------------