JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the confirmation of sale dtd. 30/5/2022 (Annexure-Y) issued by the respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.6 to the writ petition in respect of the suit schedule property. 2. The relevant facts for adjudication of writ petition are that, the petitioner is a land developer and has developed layouts for Mysuru Urban Development Authority. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 is a Co-operative Society registered under Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with an object of providing housing sites to its members. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and respondent No.4 Society, entered into Land Assembling-cum-Development followed by supplementary agreement to procure land at Banandur Village, Ramanagara Taluk. As per clause (2) of Part III of the agreement, the respondent-Society has agreed to make payments towards the development of proposed layout at various stages and respondent further agreed to pay Rs.749.00 per sq.ft. in terms of the payment details set out in principal agreement. In terms of the said agreement, six months period was fixed for assembling and conversion of the land and fifteen months period was stipulated for developing layout after obtaining approval from the competent authorities. In terms of the agreement referred to above, petitioner took up the work of assembling land and in the meanwhile, entered into an agreement with various land owners for securing necessary revenue records pertaining to the land in question. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner has spent huge amount towards the development of the project, however, in view of the dispute that arose between the petitioner and respondentSociety, the petitioner has lodged complaint with Sadashivanagar Police Station on 3/10/2016 and thereafter, the petitioner was directed to approach the Civil Court as per endorsement dtd. 3/11/2016. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Society has filed dispute in No.356/2016-17 under Sec. - 70(2) of the Act and the said dispute was resisted by the petitioner stating that the petitioner is neither a member of respondent-society nor claiming any relief through the member/employee/office bearer of respondent-Society and accordingly, took up a plea with regard to jurisdictional aspect. The respondent-authorities having considered the averments made in the dispute and the objection raised by the petitioner herein, has passed an order dtd. The respondent-authorities having considered the averments made in the dispute and the objection raised by the petitioner herein, has passed an order dtd. 28/6/2017, (Annexure-A) to the writ petition and directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.17, 57, 87, 000.00 with accrued interest to the respondent-Society. Thereafter, the respondent-Society filed Execution Case No.ARB-2/45/CEP/6/17/18 before the respondent No.2, for recovery of the decreetal amount. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed Writ Petitions No.26288-388 of 2017 before this Court challenging the order dtd. 17/12/2016 passed by the respondent No.1 therein and this Court, by order dtd. 28/8/2017 allowed Writ Petitions in part, by quashing the final order dtd. 28/4/2017, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.2.00 crore before respondent-Society within two months from the date of order at Annexure-B to the writ petition. In the meanwhile, wife of the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.12294 of 2018, challenging the action taken by the respondent-Society against her property and this Court, by order dtd. 21/3/2018, granted an interim order staying Annexure-G1 and G2 therein, subject to certain conditions. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has filed, Application in IA.I of 2018 in Writ Petitions No.26288- 328 of 2017 disposed of on 28/8/2017, challenging the action taken by the respondent-authorities, and this court, by order dtd. 13/11/2018 (Annexure-D), appointed an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. Pursuant to same, learned Arbitrator conducted the proceedings and by order dated, 9/5/2020 (Annexure-E) terminated the arbitral proceedings under Sec. -32(2)(c) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the meanwhile, the petitioner and his wife filed Writ Petition No.10232 of 2020 challenging the confirmation order of sale made by the respondent-Society and this Court, by order dtd. 18/11/2020 (Annexure-F), dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner along with his wife, has filed Writ Appeal No.703 of 2020, and The Division Bench, by order, dtd. 13/12/2021 dismissed the Appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner and his wife filed Review Petition No.400 of 2021 and said Review Petiton also came to be dismissed by order dtd. 4/3/2022 (Annexure- H). Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred Special Leave Petition No.10859 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 13/12/2021 dismissed the Appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner and his wife filed Review Petition No.400 of 2021 and said Review Petiton also came to be dismissed by order dtd. 4/3/2022 (Annexure- H). Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred Special Leave Petition No.10859 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred AA No.96 of 2021 under Sec. 14(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the trial Court against the termination of arbitral proceedings and same is pending consideration before the competent Civil Court. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Society has issued Form No.9 (Annexure-R), and sought to auction the suit schedule property pursuant to the sale notice dtd. 21/12/2021 in Execution Petition No.6 of 2017-18 referred to in the said proceedings and in the said auction the property was brought for sale and respondent No.6 has participated in auction, proceedings and was declared as highest bidder and pursuant to the same, the respondent-authority has confirmed the sale made in favour of respondent No.6 as per the order dtd. 30/5/2022 (Annexure-Y). Feeling aggrieved by the confirmation of sale by the respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.6, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. On service of notice respondents entered appearance. Respondent No.4, filed Statement of Objections denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner is filing petitions successively with a malafide intention and without paying the amount that is due to respondents and hence, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. I have heard Sri Mahesh Kiran Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. A. R. Sharadamba, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and 5; Sri Vivek Holla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4; and Sri Prakash Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the confirmation of sale made by the respondent-authorities in favour of respondent No.6 is contrary to Rule 38(2)(i) of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Rules (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), as the auction purchaser fails to deposit the stipulated amount within 45 days from the date of auction and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. The learned Counsel also contended that, though the Rule provides for deposit to be made within 45 days, however auction purchaser has deposited amount after 113 days from the date of auction and same is contrary to sale notice and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. In this regard, he referred to the auction proceedings in Form No.9 issued under Rule 38(2)(d) of the Rules and emphasised that the date of auction was on 3/2/2022 and the deposit of bid amount was made on 25/5/2022, which is beyond 45 days and same is contrary to Rule 38(2)(i) of the Rules. In this regard, he referred to the Order dtd. 28/4/2017 (Annexure-W) by the competent authority and argued that the said authority ought not to have extended the time in derogation of the aforementioned Rule and accordingly sought of interference of this Court. He also submitted that the terms and conditions for payment of the balance amount by auction purchasers was also not considered by the respondent No.3 and therefore, the respondent No.3, has interpreted the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.900 of 2020, which is illegal and requires to be interfered with by this Court and accordingly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, as the claim of the respondent-Society before the Arbitrator has been terminated and as there is no claim as of now, the impugned confirmation sale made by the respondent No.3 is illegal and therefore, the action taken by the respondentauthorities confirming the sale in respect of respondent No.6 requires to be set aside in this writ petition. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to Order XXI Rules 84, 85 and 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure and contended that if the auction purchaser fails to pay the balance amount within fifteen days of the sale, and for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions therein, the defaulting auction purchaser is not entitled for the fruits of the auction. In this regard, he referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANILAL MOHANLAL SHAH AND OTHERS v. SARDAR SAYED AHMED SAYED MAHMAD AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1954 SC 349 ; and in the case of RAO MAHMOOD AHMAD KHAN THROUGH THEIR LR v. RANBIR SINGH AND OTHERS reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 275; in the case of S.V. KANAKARAJ v. VIJAYA BANK reported in ILR 1987 KAR. 1317; and the judgment of this Court in the case of SRI R. JAGADISH NAIK v. SMT. GOWRAMMA AND OTHERS made in Writ Petition No.54390 of 2015 decided on 21/4/2016. 6. Per contra, Sri Vivek Holla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4-Society, invited the attention to order dtd. 28/8/2017 in writ petitions No.26288-328 of 2017 and argued that the petitioner has not complied with the direction issued by this Court at paragraph 14 of the said Order by depositing Rs.2.00 crore before the respondent-Society within two months from the date of order and therefore, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. He further contended that though the petitioner has deposited Rs.2.00 crore in respect of the action taken by the respondentauthorities and the said deposit relates to the property belonging to his wife and not pertaining to the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petitions No.26288-328 of 2017 and accordingly, he submits that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. He further contended that undisputably, the sale consideration was made by the respondent No.6 on 25/5/2022, however, the reason for delay of 107 days in depositing the amount was due to the pendency of the Writ Petition No.900 of 2022 before this Court and therefore, he contended that the relevant date for considering the payment of the balance by the respondent No.6 was from the date of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.900 of 2022 and accordingly, sought to justify the action of the respondentauthorities. In this regard, he referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ATMARAM MITTAL v. ESHWAR SINGH PUNIA reported in 1998(4) SCC 324 and argued that the respondent No.6 should not be made to suffer because of delay in proceedings in Writ Petition No.900 of 2022. In this regard, he referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ATMARAM MITTAL v. ESHWAR SINGH PUNIA reported in 1998(4) SCC 324 and argued that the respondent No.6 should not be made to suffer because of delay in proceedings in Writ Petition No.900 of 2022. In this regard, he also referred to the law declared by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MANOHARLAL AND OTHERS reported in (2020)8 SCC 129 and pleaded that, act of Court shall not prejudice the respondent No.6 and accordingly, argued that the impugned order passed by the competent authority is just and proper. He also emphasised that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of not disclosing the material facts and suppression of relevant material by the petitioner and therefore, argued that the writ petition be dismissed. 7. Sri Prakash Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 argued in the lines of the submission made by the respondent No.4 and submitted that the respondent No.6 is a bonafide purchaser of the schedule property and therefore, the interest of respondent No.6 should be safeguarded, as the deposit of bid amount was made on 25/5/2022, after the conclusion of the proceedings in Writ Petition No.900 of 2022. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the order impugned. 9. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the core question to be answered in this writ petition relates to interpretation of Rule 38(2)(i) of the Rules. It is not in dispute that the respondentSociety has filed dispute in No.JRB/MD/356/2016-17 under Sec. 70(2) of Act against the petitioner herein and the said dispute came to be allowed on 28/4/2017 (Annexure-A), whereby the competent authority directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.17, 57, 87, 000.00 and Rs.3.00 crore with accrued interest. The said order was challenged in Writ petitions No.26288-328 of 2017 before this Court, and this Court, by order dtd. 28/8/2017 allowed the petitions in part with a rider that the petitioner shall deposit sum of Rs.2.00 crore before the respondent-Society within two months from the date of the order. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not complied with the direction issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. 28/8/2017 allowed the petitions in part with a rider that the petitioner shall deposit sum of Rs.2.00 crore before the respondent-Society within two months from the date of the order. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not complied with the direction issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. However, in the application filed by the petitioner in Writ Petitions No.26288-328 of 2017, this Court, by order dtd. 13/11/2018, directed the parties to resolve the dispute in Arbitration proceedings. Pursuant to same, learned Arbitrator by order dtd. 9/5/2020 terminated the proceedings under Sec. 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the meanwhile, the petitioner and his wife has approached this Court in writ petition No.10232 of 2020 challenging the Sale Certificate issued by the competent authority and the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 18/11/2020 (Annexure-F). At paragraph 18 of the said judgment, this Court has held that the order dtd. 28/4/2018 has remained intact and feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed Writ Appeal 703 of 2020 which came to be dismissed by this Court on 13/12/2021 (AnnexureG). Petitioner has filed Review Petition No.400 of 2021 and the said Review Petition came to be dismissed on 4/3/2022. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has filed Arbitration application under Sec. 14(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking setting aside the order dtd. 9/5/2020 passed by the learned Arbitrator, which is pending consideration. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Society initiated Execution Proceedings in No.ARB-2/45/CEP/6/2017-18 in respect of auction of the land in question. It is also not in dispute that the respondent-authorities has issued auction notice specifying that the land in question be sold in the auction. The date of auction was fixed on 3/2/2022 and on the said date, the respondent No.6 was declared as the highest bidder and the bid amount was fixed at Rs.9.00 crore. The relevant paragraph regarding the proceedings held on 28/4/2017 (Annexure-W) reads as under: All that Western Portion of Land measuring 33.5 guntas marked within the letters ABCDEIH shown in pink colour in the sketch annexed herein out of the entire land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas in Survey No.12, of Mallasandra Village, yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (converted land wide order No.ALN(n)SR-361/04-05 dtd. 7/4/2004-05 to and is bounded on the: East by: Remaining land fallen to the share of the JDrs. 7/4/2004-05 to and is bounded on the: East by: Remaining land fallen to the share of the JDrs. Measuring 33.5 guntas in the same Survey Number and also Survey No.19 Shettyhalli Village West by: Muniswamappa's Land North by: Survey No.19 Shettyhalli village and Ramakrishnappa's Property South by: Shettyhalli to Mallasandra Main Road (emphasis supplied) 10. In the backdrop of these undisputed facts, it is relevant to extract the provisions contained under Rule 38(2)(i) of the Rules, which provides for attachment and sale of immovable property in execution of the decree. Rule 38(2)(i) reads as under: "38. Attachment and sale of immoveable property- (1) XXX XXX XXX (2)(a) to (h) XXX XXX XXX.... (i) The remainder of the purchase money and the amount required for the general stamp for the sale certificate shall be paid (within 45 days) from the date of sale: (****) Provided further that in calculating the amounts to be paid under this clause, the purchaser shall have the advantage of any set off to which he may be entitled under clause(1)" (emphasis supplied) 11. The plain language of Rule 38(2)(i) of the Rules contemplates that the auction purchaser shall deposit the entire purchase money within 45 days from the date of sale. The language employed under Rule 38(2)(i) of the Rules for issuance of sale certificate specifies that the auction purchaser "shall" deposit the entire amount within 45 days from the date of sale. As per Rule 38(2)(i) of the Rules, if the auction purchaser fails to deposit the amount specified in the bid within 45 days from the date of sale, the Recovery Officer is empowered to cancel the bid. In this regard, Rule 38(2)(j) reads as under: "...38(2)(j) In default of payment of the remainder of the purchase money, within the period mentioned in clause(i), the deposit, may, if the Recovery officer thinks fit, after defraying the expenses of the sale, be forfeited to the Government and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claims to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may subsequently be sold;" 12. Conjoint reading of the language employed in Rule 38(2)(i) and (j), of the Rules contemplate that the auction purchaser is mandatorily required to deposit the bid amount within 45 days and in any event, no statutory authority, much less the respondent No.6 herein, having locus to dilute the language employed under Sec. 38(2)(i) of the Rules. In the present writ petition, it is not in dispute that the auction was held on 3/2/2022 and the deposit of the entire bid amount was made on 25/5/2022, which, undisputably, is beyond 45 days and therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is justified in stating that the impugned order dtd. 30/5/2022 (Annexure-Y) passed by the respondent No.3, confirming the sale in favour of respondent No.6 is contrary to Rule 38(2)(i) of the Rules and as such, the mandatory provisions contemplated under the Rule cannot be extended beyond 45 days from the date of sale. In this aspect, this Court, in the case of ABBUBAKAR BEARY v. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES reported in ILR 1985 KAR. 35, after deducing the provision under Rule 38(2)(i) and (j) and Rule 38(2)5(a) of the Rules, held that Rule 38(2)(i) is clear and the auction purchaser has to deposit the balance money as also the amount required for the purchase of General Stamp Paper necessary for issuance of the sale certificate within 15 days from the date of sale. There is no power given to any authority to extend the time for deposit the balance of the Auction amount beyond 45 days from the date of sale. The first proviso to Rule 38(2)(i) confers power on the Recovery Officer to extend the time for deposing the amount required for the purpose of stamp paper upto 30 days from the date of sale and therefore, this Court has categorically held that the maximum period for deposit the balance of the auction amount and for deposting the cost of stamp paper is 15 days and 30 days respectively, i.e. at any rate, maximum 45 days from the date of sale. The consequence of failure to comply with Rule 38(2)(i), i.e. if the auction purchaser commits default in depositing the entire bid amount within the time allowed under Rule 38(2)(i) of the Rules, the defaulting purchaser not only loses all claims to the property in question, but also becomes liable for loss occasioned by the subsequent sale. The consequence of failure to comply with Rule 38(2)(i), i.e. if the auction purchaser commits default in depositing the entire bid amount within the time allowed under Rule 38(2)(i) of the Rules, the defaulting purchaser not only loses all claims to the property in question, but also becomes liable for loss occasioned by the subsequent sale. Therefore, I am of the view that, the petitioner in the present writ petition has made out a case for interference by this Court (also see Writ petition No.31431 of 2018 decided on 18/6/2009). It is well established principle in law that this Court cannot circumvent the mandatory provision contemplated under Rule 38(2)(i) of the Rules and the respondent No.6, undisputably, having not deposited the balance bid amount within 45 days from the date of sale, I am of the view that the auction purchaser has not complied with Rule 38(2)(i) of the Rules, and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed; ii) Order dtd. 30/5/2022 passed in Execution Case No.ARB-2/45/CEP/6/17/18 by the respondent No.3 is set aside.