The court ruled that minor procedural errors, such as delayed deposit of non-judicial stamps, should not invalidate an auction sale, especially when substantial compliance is evident.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present civil revision petition was originally filed questioning the order dated 21.04.2022 passed in IA No.175 of 2022 in IA No.588 of 2014 in IA No.661 of 1994 in OS No.252 of 1986 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Subsequently, the prayer was amended pursuant to the order dated 05.12.2022 passed in IA No.1 of 2024 passed by this Court and the challenge was restricted to intermediary order dated 16.07.2021 passed by the Trial Court in IA No.588 of 2014.

2. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein are the plaintiffs in the suit and respondent No.7 was the sole defendant.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :

The suit OS No.252 of 1986 was filed for partition of the suit schedule properties. The said suit was decreed. As the Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties could not be divided, the Trial Court conducted an auction for the same on 18.02.2020. The petitioner participated in the auction and became the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.50,95,000/-.

4. The petitioner immediately paid Rs.12,73,750/- towards 1/4th of the total bid amount on 19.02.2020 after obtaining permission from the Trial Court i.e., Rs.11,20,855/- towards sale consideration vide transaction ID.No.30163560562019 and Rs.1,52,895/- vide transaction ID.No.30163655422019 dated 19.02.2020 towards poundage amount.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner paid Rs.39,74,145/- towards balance sale consideration on 25.02.2020 vide Transaction ID.No.30166270712019 even though the 3/4th balance amount comes to Rs.38,21,250/-. The petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,52,895/- in excess of the original amount, which is the poundage amount, under the mistaken notion.

6. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application vide GR No.1518 dated 04.08.2020 expressing his readiness to get the Sale Certificate. The Trial Court on 16.07.2021 passed the impugned order setting aside the auction sale on the ground that the petitioner did not deposit non-judicial stamps or amount for purchase of non-judicial stamps in Court within the time prescribed under Order 21 Rule 85 CPC as applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh.

7. The Trial Court was of the opinion that the time period prescribed under Order 21 Rule 85 CPC for deposit of non-judicial stamps was mandatory and non-compliance of the time frame prescribed invalidated the auction process. The petitioner thereafter filed an application seeking review vide IA No.175 of 2022 explaining that the excess amount of Rs.1,52,895/- is in the custody of the Court and non-deposit of the non-judicial stamps cannot be said to be fatal blow.

8. It was further urged that as per the procedure, deposit of non-judicial stamps would come after confirmation of sale, as the Trial Court in this case, did not pass any order confirming the sale. The review application was also dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 21.04.2022.

9. Initially, the petitioner filed the civil revision petition questioning the order passed in the review application i.e., IA No.175 of 2022 and subsequently the prayer was amended and the order dated 16.07.2021 cancelling the sale as stated supra was questioned.

10. Heard Sri G. Ram Gopal, learned Counsel assisted by Sri S. Bala Mohan Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No.7 i.e., the defendant in the suit.

11. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in deposit of non-judicial stamps was only on account of the fact that no formal order of confirmation of sale was passed by the Trial Court and therefore there was some delay in deposit of the