ORDER

1. THE APPELLANT DECREE-HOLDER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE DECREE-HOLDER") FILED A SUIT BEING SUIT OS NO. 295 OF 1974 IN THE COURT OF THE E CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE FOR RECOVERY OF RS 44,641.44 PAISE ON THE BASIS OF A PRONOTE EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT-DEBTOR. THE SUIT WAS DECREED WITH INTEREST @ 6 PER CENT PER ANNUM.

2. THE APPELLANT THEREAFTER FILED EXECUTION APPLICATION FOR RECOVERY OF DECRETAL AMOUNT. SINCE THE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT-DEBTOR DID NOT PAY THE DECRETAL AMOUNT, HIS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEARING SURVEYS NOS. 46/2 AND 46/3 F IN SARAKKI VILLAGE, BANGALORE, SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 1 ACRE AND 30 GUNTAS ALONG WITH THE HOUSE BUILT THEREON WAS BROUGHT TO SALE. THE APPELLANT DECREE-HOLDER TOOK PERMISSION FROM THE COURT TO BID FOR PURCHASE OF SUIT PROPERTY AT THE AUCTION-SALE. THE AUCTION WAS HELD ON 3-3-1976 AND THE OFFER OF THE APPELLANT OF RS 75,000 FOR THE PROPERTY IN REFERENCE BEING THE HIGHEST WAS ACCEPTED. LATER ON, THIS BID WAS CONFIRMED BY THE EXECUTING COURT.

3. UNFORTUNATELY, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE ENTIRE DECRETAL AMOUNT AND THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED FELL SHORT BY RS 12,750.

4. THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE AUCTION-SALE BECAME FINAL ON 5-4-1984. THE APPELLANT FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 90 CPC ON 6-12-1991. THE COURT ORDERED THE DELIVERY OF POSSESSION ON 6-2-1992. ON 26-2-1992 THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR FILED AN APPLICATION TO RECALL THE DELIVERY WARRANT ISSUED BY THE COURT.

5. THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR TO RECALL THE DELIVERY WARRANT. AGGRIEVED AGAINST WHICH THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR FILED THE REVISION PETITION BEING CRP NO. 4207 OF 1992 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. THE HIGH COURT ACCEPTED THE REVISION PETITION AND HELD THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE ENTIRE PURCHASE PRICE, THE SALE IN FAVOUR OF THE DECREE-HOLDER WAS A NULLITY. FURTHER THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO FILE THE APPLICATION WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE SALE BECOMING ABSOLUTE, THE APPLICATION FILED BY HIM FOR DELIVERY OF POSSESSION WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. ARTICLE 134 OF THE LIMITATION ACT PROVIDES THAT AN APPLICATION FOR DELIVERY OF POSSESSION BY A PURCHASER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AT A SALE IN EXECUTION OF A DECREE CAN BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE SALE BECOMING ABSOLUTE. THE SALE MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT HAD BECOME ABSOLUTE IN 1984 WHEREAS THE APPLICATION FOR DELIVERY WARRANT WAS MADE IN THE YEAR 1991. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE EXECUTING COURT WAS SET ASIDE AND THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR FOR RECALLING THE DELIVERY WARRANT WAS ALLOWED. WHILE SO DOING, THE HIGH COURT DIRECTED THAT THE DEPOSIT OF RS 62,250 MADE BY THE APPELLANT DECREE-HOLDER BE REFUNDED TO THE DECREE-HOLDER ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 15 PER CENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF THE DEPOSIT MADE I.E. 17-3-1976. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE COURT, THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS 2,81,250 IN THE EXECUTING COURT ON 8-7-1994.

6. SINCE THE DECREE-HOLDER DID NOT DEPOSIT THE ENTIRE AUCTION PRICE AND ALSO FAILED TO MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR DELIVERY OF POSSESSION WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE SALE BECOMING ABSOLUTE, THE TRIAL COURT (SIC HIGH COURT) HAS CORRECTLY ALLOWED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR TO RECALL THE WARRANT OF DELIVERY.

7. THE HIGH COURT HAS DONE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IN ORDERING THE REFUND OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY THE DECREE-HOLDER (RS 62,250) ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 15 PER CENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF DEPOSIT MADE BY HIM I.E. 17-3-1976. THIS PART OF THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT STANDS COMPLIED WITH. THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR HAS ALREADY DEPOSITED THE SUM OF RS 2,81,250 IN THE EXECUTING COURT ON 8-7-1994.

8. YESTERDAY, WE HAD PUT IT TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR TO PAY SOME FURTHER AMOUNT TO SATISFY THE DECREE WHICH HAD BEEN PASSED IN FAVOUR OF THE DECREE-HOLDER. COUNSEL FOR THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR VERY FAIRLY STATED THAT HE WOULD PAY THE DECRETAL AMOUNT ALONG WITH THE INTEREST AWARDED THEREON AND HAS ACCORDINGLY HAND