The failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of depositing 25% of the purchase money immediately rendered the auction sale null and void, and the confirmation of sale without proper consideration of offers from other intending purchasers was unjustified.

JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J.:---Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

INTRODUCTION

2. The issue in the present case is one of potential significance in relation to the law of auction sale and in particular with regard to the auction sale by Court in exercise of powers conferred under Order 21, Rule 82 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.)

BACK-DROP FACTS

3. The facts necessary to appreciate rival contentions may be briefly stated:

This petition, brought by the judgment-debtor, questions of the validity of the auction sale by Court, of the property owned by the petitioner judgment debtor, held on 12-10-1999. Respondent No. 1 herein is the decree holder; whereas respondent No. 2 is an auction purchaser.

4. The respondent No. 1 decree holder had filed Special Civil Suit No. 152 of 1998 for recovery of Rs. 86,250/-. The said suit was decreed for the sum of Rs. 86,250/- with further interest thereon at the rate of 18% p.a. with costs.

5. The respondent No. 1 decree holder upon initiation of execution proceeding, on 15-4-1999 applied for attachment and, sale of the property in execution of the decree obtained by him. The attachment order was passed on 8-6-1999. The attached property belonging to the petitioner/judgment-debtor was put to auction sale through Court, on 12-10-1999. The attachment property received highest bid, in the sum of Rs. 91,000/-, in auction sale conducted by the Executing Court, though the same was valued at Rs. 3,82,000/- in the sale proclamation.

6. The auction purchaser was adjudged as the highest bidder but failed to deposit twenty five per cent (25%) of the purchase price amounting to Rs. 22,750/- on the date of the auction sale i.e. on 12-10-1999, till 5-30 p.m. The extension of time sought for, by him was rejected by the Executing Court vide its order passed on the same day i.e. on 12-10-1999. However, on the next day, i.e. on 13-10-1999 the said auction purchaser deposited the entire amount of Rs. 91,000/- with the executing Court.

7. The petitioner-judgment debtor on 29-10-1999 applied for cancellation of the sale for noncompliance of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 84(1) of the C.P.C. and prayed that the sale should not be confirmed and further contended that the value of the property, put to auction, was more than Rs. 7 lacs. On the same day, one Ramesh Choube, a third person, along with another third person, Ramesh Gawali, moved two separate applications contending therein that the above auction sale was without proper publicity and that too without notifying the same in the locality by beat of drum, as such, they could not take part in the auction sale conducted by the executing Court. Both of them submitted their respective offers to the Executing Court. Mr. Ramesh Choube offered to purchase the property in question for Rs. 3,50,000/-, whereas Ramesh Gavali expressed his willingness to offer for Rs. 2,50,000/-, for the said property.

8. The Executing Court after receipt of the objection from the judgment-debtor and offers from the two intending purchasers and after hearing all the concerned parties, by an order dated 3-12-1998 allowed Ramesh Choube to deposit Rs. 3,50,000/- on or before 4-1-1999 by way of security, so as to enable him to establish his bona fides. The text of the order dated 3-12-1999 reads under :

"The J.D. has submitted vide Ex. 21, that if resale is kept the price of the property will come to Rs. 7,00,000/- the Court has to safeguard the interest of J.D. and considering difference in price this prayer of J.D. is accepted and property is kept for resale on 4-12-1999 at the cost of J.D. If no sale is taken place, offer of this applicant will be confirmed. On failure of deposit of money by this applicant the offer of first auction purchaser will be considered."

In pursuance of the above order auction was to take place on 4-12-1999. Consequently, the petitioner-judgment de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document