IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Shah, J.
Appellants: Uttamchand Milapchand
Vs.
Respondent: Balkrishna Ramnath
Civil Revn. Appln. No. 966 of 1958
Decided On: 26.09.1960
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M.G. Choudhari, R.G. Nandapurkar and D.R. Nandapurkar, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: S.G. Deshmukh Ardhapurkar, Adv.
AUCTION SALE - ORDER 21 RULE 85, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - MANDATORY PROVISION - EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PAYMENT OF BALANCE OF PURCHASE PRICE - JURISDICTION OF COURT - WAIVER OF IRREGULARITY - NON-PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE WITHIN 15 DAYS - NO SALE - RE-SALE.
Fact of the Case:
An auction purchaser failed to pay the balance of the purchase price within 15 days from the date of the auction sale. The court ordered a re-sale of the property. The auction purchaser filed a revision application challenging the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 85 of the Civil Procedure Code are mandatory and the court has no jurisdiction to extend the time for payment of the balance of the purchase price. Non-payment of the purchase price within 15 days renders the sale proceedings as a complete nullity. The consent of the judgment-debtor to the time being extended in favor of the auction purchaser cannot waive the irregularity.
Issues: Whether the provisions of Order 21 Rule 85 of the Civil Procedure Code are mandatory and the court has jurisdiction to extend the time for payment of the balance of the purchase price.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Manilal Mohanlal v. Sardar Sayed Ahrned Sayed Mahmad, AIR 1954 SC 349, which held that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 85 are mandatory and upon non-compliance with these provisions there is no sale at all. The court also held that the consent of the judgment-debtor to the time being extended in favor of the auction purchaser cannot waive the irregularity.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision application and upheld the order of the lower court ordering a re-sale of the property.
"The full amount of purchase-money payable shall be paid by the purchaser into Court before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the sale-of the property",
and it was urged that the provisions of that rule were mandatory and that the Court had committed an error in granting the applicants application for extension of time for the payment of the balance of the purchase price. The learned Judge accepted the contention which was supported inter alia by a decision of the Supreme Court and observed as fol-lows:-
"In the light of these rulings it is concluded that the provision for payment is mandatory and the Court cannot use inherent power to circumvent the mandatory provisions of the Code and relievo the auction purchaser of his obligation to make the deposit of purchase-money under Oorder 21 Rule 85 C. P. C." Accordingly, the learned Judge refused to accept the deposit of the balance of the purchase price and ordered a re-sale of the property under Order 21, Rule 86 of the Code. It is against this order that the auction purchaser has filed the present revision application in this Court.
2. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that although the provisions of Order 21 Rule 85 were mandatory in their character, it was open to the Court to extend the time to enable the auction purchaser to pay the balance of the purchase price if both the judgment creditor and the judgment-debtor did not object to it. It was further contended that non-payment of the balance of the purchase price within the period fixed by Order 21 Rule 85 only amounted to an irregularity and that it was open to the judgment-debtor to waive irregularity. If, therefore, according to the learned advocate for the applicant, the judgment-debtor did not object to the time being extended, in this case for the auction purchaser, to pay the balance of the purchase price, the validity of the sale could not be said to have been affected at all and, therefore the learned Judge should be directed to accept the payment of the balance of the purchase price in completion of the auction sale.
3. It was on the other hand contended on behalf of the opponent that in Case of mandatory provisions there could never be a question of waiver thereof. No amount of consent either of the judgment creditor or of the judgment-dehtor or both could confer jurisdiction upon the executing Court to extend time for payment of the balance of the purchase price by the auction purchaser, if the provisions of Order 21 Rule 85 required that the full purchase price shall be paid within 15 days from the date of the sale and accordiogly, the Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time at all. In suppor
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.