IMPORTANT POINT
Term “immediately” occurring in Rule 84 Order XXI CPC is required to be constructed as meaning with all reasonable speed, considering the circumstances of the case.

Headnote:(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order XXI Rule 84—Auction sale of immovable property of judgment debtor in execution of money decree—Sale was accepted by Executing Court on 26.10.1988—Sale having been conducted at about 4 PM on said date and in view that banks at that time were closed, Court directed auction purchaser to deposit 25% of sale consideration on 27.10.1988 and balance amount on 11.11.1988—Amounts were deposited accordingly—Setting aside of sale on premise that sale was void as it was confirmed before expiry of 30 days from date of acceptance of bid—High Court dismissed revision holding further that 25% of bid amount was not deposited on 26.10.1988 and was deposited on 27.10.1988, provisions of Order 21 Rule 84 was not complied with—Appeal—Meaning of the term “immediately” occurring in Order 21 Rule 84—Fact that banks were closed by the time sale was held on 26.10.1988 and Court itself directed auction purchaser to deposit amount on 27.10.1988 it satisfied requirement of law—Term immediately must be construed having regard to principles of interpretation of statute—Only because sale was confirmed within 30 days from date of acceptance of bid, same by itself was not decisive to set aside sale after 8 years that too at instance of decree holder—Impugned order was liable to be set aside.
       Held : Having regard to the fact that the appellant had explained that it was not possible for his predecessor in interest to deposit the 25% of the amount immediately after such declaration, as the banks, at that point of time, were closed and furthermore having regard to the fact that presumably the court in that view of the matter had directed the auction purchaser to deposit the amount on the next day, we are of the opinion that it satisfies the requirements of law. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of a statute that where literal meaning leads to anomaly and absurdity, it should be avoided.(Paras 21 and 22)
       The term “immediately”, therefore, must be construed having regard to the aforementioned principles. The term has two meanings. One, indicating the relation of cause and effect and the other, the absence of time between two events. In the former sense, it means proximately, without intervention of anything, as opposed to “mediately”. In the latter sense, it means instantaneously. The term “immediately”, is, thus, required to be construed as meaning with all reasonable speed, considering the circumstances of the case.(Paras 30 and 31)
       We, therefore, are of the opinion that having regard to the order of the court and the other circumstances stated by the appellant, his predecessor-in-interest not being able to deposit the 25% of the bid amount upon acceptance of bid did not render the auction sale void, as was opined by the High Court.(Para 39)
       We may also notice that the auction purchaser had deposited the full purchase money within the time stipulated in terms of Order XXI Rule 85 of the Code.(Para 40)
       We do not know under what circumstances the decree holder himself filed an application for setting aside the sale. Only because the sale was confirmed within a period of 30 days from the date of acceptance of the bid, the same by itself, in our opinion, was not decisive to set aside the sale after 8 years. We, therefore, are unable to agree with the findings of the Executing Court or the High Court.(Para 41)
       (ii) INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE—Where literal meaning leads to anomaly and absurdity, it should be avoided—It is duty of Court to accept a construction which promotes object of legislation.(Paras 22 and 25)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—A judgment and order dated 8.01.1999 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in CRP No. 3528 of 1998 is in question before us, which arises in the following factual matrix.

2. M/s. Nellai Small Match Producers Service Industrial Co-op. Society Ltd. filed a suit against N. Dharmaraj, Respondent No. 2 herein in the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge in the State of Tamil Nadu for realization of some amount owing and due to it. The said suit was decreed. The said decree was transferred for execution to the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The matter ultimately was transferred to the Court of the 17th Additional City Civil Judge, Banaglore.

3. A proclamation of sale of immovable property bearing No. 1138/8, II Main Road, Vijaynagar, Bangalore was issued on 21.10.1988 whereupon the auction sale was held. In the said auction sale Smt. Mahadevi S. Havannavar became the highest bidder having given a bid for a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/-. The said deal was accepted by the learned Executing Court on 26.10.1988. It is stated that the said sale was conducted at about 4.00 p.m. on the said date and keeping in view of the fact that the banks at that time were closed, the court directed the auction purchaser to deposit the amount by the next day in the following terms:

“Sale proclamation and warrant not served at spot. TRD files vakalath for the bidder did accepted (sic), permitted to deposit 25% of the sale amount by tomorrow. Property is free from encumbrances as it stands for balance of consideration by 11.11.”

4. It is not in dispute that pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction, the auction purchaser deposited the amount of 25% of the sale amount on 27.10.1988 and deposited the balance amount on 11.11.1988.

5. Smt. Leelavathi, Respondent No. 3 herein, in the meanwhile, had instituted a suit in the Court of Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore being O.S. No. 2493 of 1981 on 17.08.1981 for specific performance of contract against Respondent No. 2 in respect of the self-same property wherefor a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- said to have been paid by way of advance. The said suit was decreed by the said Civil Judge by a judgment and order dated 20.04.1985. An appeal was preferred thereagainst before the High Court which was dismissed by an order dated 6/8.03.1996.

6. After the auction sale was confirmed, Respondent No. 3 appears to have filed an application purported to be under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code). It is not in dispute that by an order dated 11.11.1988 as no objection was filed and the entire amount had been deposited, the sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was directed to be issued to the auction purchaser. Sale certificate on a stamp paper, which had been furnished in the meanwhile, was issued by the Court on 17.11.1988.

7. It is also stated that the property in question had been allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority to the original owner. The Bangalore Development Authority by a registered deed of sale dated 16.01.1990 transferred the property in favour of Shri Sangamesh G. Havannavar, husband of the auction purchaser Smt. Mahadevi S. Havannavar as in the meantime she had died.

8. On or about 5.02.1992, the said Shri Sangamesh G. Havannavar transferred his right, title and interest in the said property in favour of the appellant herein in terms of a registered deed of sale dated 5.02.1992.

9. It is contended that the appellant obtained licence from the appropriate authority for renovation of the existing ground floor and for construction of the first floor and pursuant to grant of sanction in this behalf had made constructions upon incurring a cost of Rs. 8,00,000/- therefor. He is said to have been residing therein.

10. Appellant herein was not impleaded as a party in the said execution proceedings. Respondent No. 3, however, obtained warrant of delivery of possession of the said property in execution of the decree of specific performance passed i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 87

IMPORTANT POINTTerm “immediately” occurring in Rule 84 Order XXI CPC is required to be constructed as meaning with all reasonable speed, considering the circumstances of the case.

Cases Referred (14)

IMPORTANT POINT
Term “immediately” occurring in Rule 84 Order XXI CPC is required to be constructed as meaning with all reasonable speed, considering the circumstances of the case.