The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court or officer holding the sale to decline acceptance of the highest bid when the price offered appears so clearly inadequate as to make it advisable to do so, and the importance of specifying whether properties would be sold in one lot or in separate lots in the proclamation of sale.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this revision petition, was the highest bidder in an auction sale of immovable properties held in Ex. 100/63 on the file of the Munsiff, Arasikere. He deposited one-fourth of the bid amount at the conclusion of the auction sale. By his order dated 18-1-64, the learned Munsiff purported not to accept the bid on the ground that it was too low. The amount deposited was directed to be refunded to the petitioner and a fresh sale was directed to be held. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Munsiff, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

( 2 ) MR. Narasimha Murthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that officer conducting the sale had exercised his discretion and accepted the bid, that the Court had not reserved to itself the discretion to accept or not to accept the bid made at the auction sale under its order, that the petitioner who was the highest bidder became the purchaser and that the Court had no power not to accept the bid and to direct a fresh sale.

( 3 ) THE sale proclamation in this case was issued in the form No. 29 of Appendix E to the Code of Civil Procedure. Condition No. 3 of the sale proclamation states that it shall be in the discretion of the Court or officer holding the sale to decline acceptance of the highest bid when the price offered appears so clearly inadequate as to make it advisable to do so.

( 4 ) IN support of his contention, Mr. Narasimha Murthy relied on a decision of this Court in thippaiah v. Huvinakuli Ramiah, 1963-1 Mys. LJ 61 : (AIR 1963 Mys 210 ). The facts of that case are very similar to the facts of the present case. The proclamation in that case was also issued in Form No. 29 of Appendix E to the Code of Civil Procedure. Narayana Pai, J. held that the sale in favour of the highest bidder became complete on the date of the sale itself when the officer conducting the sale declared him the highest bidder, closed the auction and accepted the deposit of 25 per cent of the bid amount and that the Munsiff was wrong in purporting not to accept the bid and ordering a resale of the property. His Lordship observed, that unless the executing Court reserves to itself the discretion under condition No. 3 of the sale proclamation in form No. 29 of Appendix 'e' to the C. P. C. , whether or not to accept the bid made at the auction sale held under its orders, the officer of the Court conducting the sale has himself, without the need of having to make a separate reference to the Court, the discretion of either accepting or not accepting a bid made at the auction held by him, such discretion must be exercised by him before the deposit of 25 per cent of the price accepted by him and that when he knocks down the property to the highest bidder and receives such deposit, the bidder must be deemed to have become the purchaser.

( 5 ) MR. R. V. Srinivasiah, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent, sought to distinguish the aforesaid case from the present case on the ground that the officer conducting the sale in the present case did not expressly state that he accepted the bid of the petitioner or that he knocked down the property to the petitioner. I think there is no substance in this contention. As observed by Narayana Pai, J. , R. 84 of O. 21 C. P. C. does not require that the declaration of accepting the bid should take place in a particular form or should be made in any selected or prescribed words. When the officer conducting the sale accepts the deposit of one-fourth of the bid amount of the highest bidder and closes the auction, the inevitable conclusion is that the said officer declared such bidder to be the purchaser.

( 6 ) IN the light to the earlier ruling of this Court, it must be held that the learned Munsiff had no power not to accept the bid and to order a resale of the property.

( 7 ) HAVING reached this conclusion, I should have ordinarily set aside the impugned order of the learned Munsiff. But, on examining the records it is seen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document