Andhra Pradesh High Court
M.Suryanarayana Rao - Appellant
Versus
Bommana Chinna Konda Reddi - Respondent
Decided On : 12-05-57
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 21, RULES 84, 85, 200 - CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE, RULES 200, 205 - SALE OF PROPERTY - DEPOSIT OF PURCHASE MONEY, STAMP AND POUNDAGE - DELAY IN DEPOSIT - EXCUSING DELAY - JURISDICTION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
In execution of a decree, the decree-holder purchased certain properties and set off the purchase money against the decree amount. He deposited the amount required for stamp and poundage after the prescribed time. The judgment-debtor objected to the sale on the ground that the provisions of Order 21, rules 84 and 85, which regulate the conditions for deposit of various sums, are mandatory in nature and that, as the decree-holder-purchaser did not deposit the said amounts within the time prescribed by the rules, the Court has no jurisdiction to excuse the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the non-deposit of the said amounts within the time prescribed constitutes only an irregularity and, in that view, excused the delay.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Order 21, rules 84 and 85, are mandatory in nature? 2. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to excuse the delay in depositing the purchase money, stamp and poundage?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the provisions of Order 21, rules 84 and 85, are not mandatory in nature. 2. The Court held that the Court has jurisdiction to excuse the delay in depositing the purchase money, stamp and poundage.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition.
( 1 ) THIS is a revision against the order of the learned Subordinate judge, Kurnool, excusing the delay in depositing in Court the amount representing the poundage and the amount required for purchasing stamps for the sale certificate. The facts that have given rise to this revision may be briefly narrated. In execution of the decree obtained in O. S. No. 69 of 1951, on the file of the Subordinate judge s Court, Kurnool, the decree-holder brought items 1, 4 and 5 mentioned in the attachment list for sale and purchased them on 21st September, 1953, for a sum of Rs. 3,380. Before purchase, he obtained the leave of the Court to bid and set off and, therefore, the purchase money was set off in part satisfaction of the decree amount. He deposited the amount required for the stamp and poundage on 8th october, 1953. As there was delay in depositng the said amount, he filed the application out of which this revision has arisen for excusing the delay. The judgment-debtor opposed that petition on the ground that the provisions of Order 21, rules 84 and 85, which regulate the conditions for deposit of various sums, are mandatory in nature and that, as the decree-holder-purchaser did not deposit the said amounts within the time prescribed by the rules, the Court has no jurisdiction to excuse the delay. the learned Subordinate Judge held that the non-deposit of the said amounts within the time prescribed constitutes only an irregularity and, in that view, excused the delay. Hence, the revision.
( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision. But as we are disposing of the case on merits, it is not necessary for us to express our opinion on the said question. The material provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and the Civil Rules of practice may be read at this stage. Order 21, rule 72, Civil Procedure Code, reads :" (1) No holder of a decree in execution of which property is sold shall, without the express permission of the Court, bid for or purchase the property. (a) Where a decree-holder purchases with such permission, the purchase-money and the amount due on the decree may, subject to the provisions of section 73, be set-off against one another, and the Court executing the decree shall enter up satisfaction of the decree in whole or in part accordingly. Rule 84.- (i) On every sale of immovable property the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of twenty-five per cent, 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 re-sold. (a) 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 ". Rule 85, which was substituted by G. O. Mis. No. 2922, Home, dated 28th October, 1936, reads :"the full amount of the purchase-money payable and the general stamp for certificate under rule 94. or the amount required for such stamp shall be deposited into Court by the purchaser before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the date of sale of the property. Provided that in calculating the amount to be so paid into Court, the purchaser shall have the advantage of any set-off to which he may be entitled under rule 72. Rule 86.-In default of payment within the period mentioned in the last preceding rule, the deposit may, if the Court thinks fit, after defraying the expenses of the sale, be forfeited to the Government, and the property shall be re-sold, 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 ".
( 3 ) RULE 200 of the Civil Rules of Practice reads :"if the applicant purchased the property with the levae of the Court, and is allowed to set-off the purchase money against any sum due to him, he shall pay the amount chargea
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.