Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1974 (MAD)

M. Kannabiran v. R. Mangalam

2015-04-22

K.K.SASIDHARAN

body2015
Judgment :- 1. The auction purchaser, who purchased the property in E.P.No.16 of 2006 in O.S.No.160 of 2004, on the file of learned District Munsif, Nilakottai, is the petitioner herein. 2. The first respondent, on the basis of a decree obtained against the second respondent, filed an execution petition in E.P.No.16 of 2006. The schedule property was auctioned by the Executing Court. The petitioner took part in the auction. The bid submitted by the petitioner was accepted for a sum of Rs.91,000/-. The petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.22,750/- towards 25% of the auction amount immediately. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to remit the remaining amount of Rs.68,250/- within a period of 15 days. According to the petitioner, he made a lodgment schedule on 24 June, 2010 itself to pay the remaining amount. Since the Executing Court failed to prepare challan, the amount could not be deposited. The application submitted by the petitioner to issue a challan was rejected by the Executing Court on the ground that the remaining amount was not deposited within the time permitted. The order, dated 20 September, 2010, is under challenge in this civil revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. None appeared on behalf of first respondent in spite of printing her name in the cause list. Similarly, none appeared on behalf of second respondent in spite of taking paper publication. 4. This Court obtained a report from the learned District Munsif, Nilakottai, in view of the contention taken by the petitioner. The report submitted by the learned District Munsif clearly shows that the petitioner deposited the remaining amount on 24 June, 2010 at 05.45 p.m. Since the amount was made after the banking hours, it was deposited next day. According to the learned District Munsif, the petitioner had not deposited the sale certificate charges on or before 24 June, 2010, and as such the auction was not confirmed. 5. The petitioner has produced the copy of the lodgment schedule with the seal of the Executing Court. The lodgement schedule clearly shows that it was filed before the Executing Court on 24.06.2010. It would not be possible for the petitioner to deposit money, unless challan is issued by the Executing Court on basis of lodgement schedule. 5. The petitioner has produced the copy of the lodgment schedule with the seal of the Executing Court. The lodgement schedule clearly shows that it was filed before the Executing Court on 24.06.2010. It would not be possible for the petitioner to deposit money, unless challan is issued by the Executing Court on basis of lodgement schedule. It was only on account of the failure on the part of the Executing Court to issue challan, the petitioner failed to deposit the sale certificate charges within the time permitted. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently another auction was conducted and the property was sold for Rs.90,000/-, and further proceedings have not been taken on account of the interim stay granted by this Court. 7. The petitioner quoted Rs.91,000/-. Even the next auction fetched only a sum of Rs.90,000/-. The background facts clearly show that the petitioner deposited the remaining amount within the time stipulated. Similarly, he made the application to issue challan for remitting sale certificate charges within the permitted time. Such being the factual position, the learned Executing Judge was not correct in rejecting the application to issue challan. 8. In the result, the order, dated 20 September, 2010 in E.A.SR.No.2824 of 2010 in E.P.No.16 of 2006 in O.S.No.160 of 2004, is set aside. The petitioner is directed to deposit the sale certificate charges within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned Executing Judge is directed to confirm the sale in favour of the petitioner in view of the deposit of entire amount and sale certificate charges. 9. In the upshot, I allow the civil revision petition. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.