Non-compliance with court sale rules vitiates the sale proceedings and renders the sale a nullity.

( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 20-10-1992 passed by the XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore on I. A. No. VII in Execution Case No. 624/ 75 on his file, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under S. 151, C. P. C. , for recalling the delivery warrant.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are: the petitioner suffered a decree and the property bearing Sy. No. 46/31 and 46/2 of Sarakki village Bangalore South Taluk measuring 1 acre 30 guntas with an R. C. C. house was brought to sale and the sale proclamation was issued on 3/10-3-1976. Spot sale was conducted on 3-3-1976. In view of Rule 138 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice the Court has to conduct the sale as per the sale notice in Court on 10-3-1976, but no sale was held on that date. An application was filed under O. 21, R. 90 of the C. P. C. on 10-3-76 which was numbered as I. A. IV, not to accept the bid and challenging the spot sale. It was posted for objection. The Court advanced the case and accepted the spot sale and passed an order to raise the question regarding irregularity in the sale proceedings before confirmation. The decree-holder got the case advanced to 15-3-1976. Then I. A. VI was filed under S. 151, C. P. C. seeking the Court to accept the final bid for a sum of Rs. 75,000/ -. No opportunity was provided to file objections before acceptable of the final bid. But, objections were filed to I. A. VI on 17-3-1976. Court passed an order that judgment-debtor can make his submission before acceptance of the bid. I. A. No. IV complaining irregularity in the conduct of sale proceedings was dismissed on 19-2-1979. The proceedings ended and entered full satisfaction of the decree. Till 19-2-1979 he had no notice of the proceedings. Decree-holder filed an application for sale certificate, in the execution proceedings under O. 21, R. 94, C. P. C. on. 4-3-1991 and the same was brought before the Court on 14-3-1991. This application was not served on the judgment-debtor. He produced the stamp paper on 30-3-1991 and sale certificate was issued on 1-4-1991. The decree-holder received the sale certificate on 3-4-1991. M. F. A. 493/79 was filed by the judgment-debtor against the order on I. A. IV questioning the sale. That was dismissed on 5-4-1984.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the decree-holder/ auction purchaser is not entitled to possession on the basis of the sale certificate obtained by him on 1-4-1991, rather the starting point of limitation to claim possession started on 5-4-1984 when the sale was confirmed or at any rate when the Miscellaneous Appeal challenging confirmation of sale was dismissed on 5-4-1984. The sale certificate is only an evidence of title and possession has to be claimed within one year from the date when the sale became absolute. However the application I. A. VI seeking possession was filed on 29-11-91 i. e. , clearly after 6 years 7 months and such a claim was barred by time having regard to the provisions of Art. 134 of the Limitation Act.

( 4 ) IT is further contended that the Court has failed to notice that the auction purchaser did not deposit the sale price at all. It should have noticed that the decretal amount was Rs. 31,943/- on the date of sale; that the decree-holder was required to deposit Rs. 44,057/- on or before 18-3-1976 but that he actually deposited only Rs. 30,307/- on 17-3-1976. Thus the decree-holder violated the mandatory provisions and consequently the sale was a nullity. It is also contended that the observations of the Court below that the petitioner participate in the proceeding is incorrect and it is true that he challenged the order confirming the sale by filing an appeal in the High Courts. But after dismissal of the appeal, which was also done without the knowledge of the petitioner or his counsel, he has been kept ignorant of the proceedings that took place thereafter in the execution case, and that he had no notice of any kind that took place after dismissal