1. The Civil Revision Petition was filed by the judgment debtors against the order in E.A.No.886 of 2008 in E.P.No.1097 of 2005 in O.S.No.65 of 2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The application was filed for seeking permission to deposit the cost of Non-Judicial Stamps for preparation of the sale certificate in E.P.No.1097 of 2005 in the suit O.S.No.65 of 2003.

2. The facts of the case are, the decree-holder has obtained a decree against the judgment debtors and in pursuance of the decree, brought certain properties for sale and an auction was conducted on 04-12-2007, in which the auction purchaser, who is the first respondent in this revision, purchased the property, being the highest bidder, and deposited 1/4th of the bid amount i.e., Rs.1,21,250/- and thereafter deposited the balance of the 3/4th amount of Rs.3,63,750/- on 15-12-2007 and when made enquiries about the other formalities about the registration etc., he was informed that the formalities will be verified and he was asked to attend the Court on 18-12-2007. He attended the Court on 18-12-2007 and he was not called and at about 6-00 P.M., he was informed that the matter was postponed as the decree-holder has filed full satisfaction memo. He was informed at that time that he will be informed about the registration fees etc., after confirming the sale in view of the full satisfaction memo. There was collusion between the judgment debtors and decree holder and full satisfaction memo was filed on 18-02-2007. The auction purchaser attended the Court on 17-01-2008 after receipt of a notice and he filed the present application for confirmation of the sale and the judgment debtors came up with an application to set aside the sale under Order XXI, Rule 89 of Civil Procedure Code (for short “C.P.C.”). The application filed by the judgment debtors is E.A.No.322 of 2008. The auction purchaser filed E.A.No.332 of 2008 and the sale was confirmed on 19-06-2008. The judgment debtors have not deposited the 5% of the auction money as required for an application under Order XXI, Rule 89 of C.P.C. But the auction purchaser has not deposited the registration fees on Non-Judicial Stamps and there was no wilful neglect and it was bona fide. The present E.A.No.886 of 2008 was filed for extending time for deposit of the non-judicial stamps.

3. Respondents 2 to 5 filed counter contending that the present application is not maintainable while disputing several of the allegations made in the petition for extension of the time. The amount was paid to the decree-holder and the decree was satisfied. There is no need for the judgment debtors to deposit 5% of the purchase money as the matter was settled outside the Court. Therefore, the judgment debtors pleaded for the dismissal of the application.

4. Both sides did not adduce any evidence and the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge allowed the petition extending the time for deposit of the non-judicial stamps on the present market value to engross the sale certificate.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the judgment debtors have preferred this revision.

6. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the lower Court in extending the time for deposit of the non-judicial stamps for engrossing the sale certificate is legal and sustainable?

7. POINT:

Most of the contentions raised by the auction purchaser is about the equity and bona fides and lack of knowledge of the procedural law. But, the fact remains even before the present application is filed, he has engaged an advocate and an application E.A.No. 332 of 2008 was filed through the counsel for confirmation of the sale and the sale was confirmed on 19-06-2008. When the auction purchaser has engaged an Advocate, it cannot be presumed that the Advocate was not informed about the failure to deposit the value of the non-judicial stamps, when particularly the auction purchaser claims that he attended the Court and made enquiries about the f