Vana Khushal Patil vs Ratilal Bhaidas

Macleod, C.J.—In this case a decree was transferred to the Collector for execution u/s 1(b) of the third schedule of the Civil Procedure Code. The property was put up for sale by the Mamlatdar on October 26, 1922, and knocked down to the highest bidder who made a deposit on the same day of one-fourth of the sale price. On November 10, the Collector directed that the remainder of the purchase-money should be collected. Under Order 21, Ruse 85, the full amount of purchase-money payable shall be paid by the purchaser into Court before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the sale of the property.

However, we are not concerned in this case with the question whether the highest bidder complied with the conditions of the sale.

On November 27 the applicant brought an application under Order 21, Rule 89, to set aside the sale after making the necessary payment into Court. The lower Court rejected the application as time barred not having been made within thirty days from the date of the sale.

The applicant appealed to the District Court and the District Judge confirmed the decision of the lower Court.

It has been urged before us that the date of the sale is not the date on which the sale takes place, and the highest bid is accepted and the deposit paid, but the date when the Collector confirms the sale and directs the remainder of the purchase-money to be collected. But it seems very clear to us that the date of the sale is when the property is put up for sale and knocked down to the highest bidder. Supposing for a moment that for one reason or another the sale is not completed that does not alter the fact that the sale has been held on that particular date. It is curious that the point, if it has any competence, should not have been raised before. Certainly, as far as my experience goes, it has always been considered that the date of the sale is when the property is put up for sale and knocked down to the highest bidder.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.