SV. Lakshmanan, 33, A/2, Ramleela Apartments, 3rd st, Abhiramapuram, Chennai-600 018 vs A. Venugopala Reddy and another

The applicant is the auction purchaser of the property bearing No.64, Dr. Rengachari Road, Chennai-600018 in the auction held on 6.11.2000

by the court. He was the successful bidder in the auction. He purchased the property for a sum of Rs.45,01,001 and he has deposited a sum of

Rs.11,23,250.25 being the 25% of the bid amount on the very same day. He was given 15 days time for paying the balance which ended on

21.11.2000. It is stated that due to the delay in realisation of the sale proceeds of a property situate in Malaysia and he told that he could remit the

amount only in instalments and he wanted to pay the amount in Application No.4924 of 2000 before the Master to pay the balance of 75%. On

4.12.2000, when the matter came before the Master, he has passed the following order:

Since the balance purchase money is not paid within the stipulated time of 15 days, the application is dismissed.

Hence he filed two applications, one to set aside the order passed by the Master and another to permit to pay the balance of 75% to the credit of

the above suit. When the matter came up before this Court, this Court has passed order on 8.12.2000 which is as follows:

The applicant is permitted to deposit 75% of the sale consideration to the credit of the suit, without prejudice to the rights of the parties, within

three weeks.

Again by order dated 5.1.2001, the amount directed by this Court on 8.12.2000 has been deposited by way of pay order and one week was

granted to the respondent to file the counter.

In the counter it is stated that this application is not maintainable. According to Order XXI, Rules 84 and 85 of C.P.C.., on the fifteenth day

from the date of sale, the entire sale amount should be deposited into court, as otherwise the sale becomes a nullity. The code specifically fixes the

time for payment of the entire amount. The code does not have jurisdiction to extend the time. Thus, when the Application No.4924 of 2000 came

up before the Master on 4.12.2000, it was dismissed after hearing the submissions of both parties. The grounds raised by the applicant is

untenable. The CPC fixes time for payment and the decree-holder''s objection or lack of them for extension of time for payment is not relevant.

The judgment- debtor has submitted before the Master that the auction was held with inadequate publicity before the sale, resulting in the

lukewarm turnout for the auction sale.

The Counsel for the respondent while arguing submitted, that the upset price for the property was Rs.45,00,000 and the bid was for

Rs.45,00,101 and there was no other bidder and the auction was finalised. It is useful to refer Order 21, Rule 85 which reads as follows:

Deposit by Purchaser and resale on default:

(1) On every sale of immovable property, then person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of

twenty-five percent on the amount of his purchase- money to the officer or other person conducting the sale, and in default of such deposit, the

property shall forthwith be resold.

(2) Where the decree-holder is the purchaser and is entitled to set-off the purchase-money under Rule 72, the Court may dispense with the

requirements of this rule.

Further Order 21, Rule 86 is as follows:

Procure in default of payment:

In default of payment within the period mentioned in the last preceding the rule, the deposit may, if the Courts things fit, after defraying the

expenses of the sale, be forfeited to the Government, and the property shall be resold, and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the

property or to any part of the sum for which it may subsequently be sold.

In the case reported in Balram Vs. Ilam Singh and others, , it has been held as follows:

..... and it was clearly held that Rule 85 being mandatory, its non-compliance renders the sale proceedings a complete nullity requiring the

executing court to process under Rule 86 and the property has to be resold unless the judgment- debtor satisfies the decree by making the

payment before the resale. The argument that the executing Court has inherent power to extend time on the ground of its own mistake was also

expressly rejected.

Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time specified under the Code of Civil Procedure; that is the entire amount should have

been deposited within fifteen days form the date of auction. If it is not done, the sale becomes a nullity and therefore, the order passed by the

learned Master is legally correct and therefore, it cannot be set aside and this application is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this application is dismissed.