Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

The judgment-debtor-revision petitioner seeks revision of the order of the execution Court by which that Court enlarged the time for making deposit of the balance purchase money for the property that was sold in auction for realization of the decree-debt and purchased by the 1st respondent who was the wife of the principal functionary of the 2nd respondent-decree-holder.

2. The auction was held on 4.2.2002 and the property which is portion of a larger building in which the revision petitioner is conducting an STD booth was bid in auction by the 1st respondent for a sum of Rs.20,100/-. On the date of the auction the auction purchaser deposited a sum of Rs.5,100/-, being 25% of the purchase money in view of R.84 of O.XXI C.P.C. The balance purchase money together with stamp paper value which ought to have been deposited within 15 days was not so deposited. The instant application, E.A.No.186 of 2002 dated 18.2.2002, seeking enlargement of time for such deposit by two weeks was actually filed only on 11.3.2002. The reason stated in the application was that the requisite amounts could not be deposited by the purchaser in view of the Government employees strike which resulted in a total paralysis of the ministerial side of the Court. The application for enlargement was stiffly resisted by the present revision petitioner who contended that such applications wherein Ss.148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure were invoked could not be entertained after the expiry of the period prescribed in R.85 of O.XXI.

3. The Court below took judicial notice of the fact that the employees had struck work on 6.2.2002 and that the strike continued till 8.3.2002 and further that on account of the total nature of the strike all Government Officers in the State including that of the Court came to a standstill. The Court noticed that the sale was conducted on a day immediately preceding the commencement of the strike and that the strike was over on 8.3.2002 which was succeeded by 9.3.2002, a Second Saturday and 10.3.2002, a Sunday. It was accordingly found by the Court that the 1st respondent had no chance at all to deposit the requisite amounts within the statutory period. According to the Court, the auction purchaser was not at fault and it was unjust to make her suffer for somebody else’s fault. Observing that there “are always exceptions to the stringencies of the rules” and further that “the circumstances herein… warrant an enlargement of time for deposit of the balance amount” the Court allowed the application. Incidentally the Court has also observed that the revision petitioner did not make deposit of the requisite amounts under R.89 and that even at that stage no offer was made by the revision petitioner for making such deposits.

4. Heard Sri. K.T. Sankaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Sandeep Ankarath, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-auction purchaser extensively.

5. Sri. K.T. Sankaran submitted that the Court below did not have jurisdiction to enlarge the period stipulated for deposit of balance purchase price in view of the mandates of R.85 of O.XXI C.P.C. The language employed in the rule, learned counsel stressed, was “shall be paid by the purchaser into Court before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the date of the sale of the property”. The period of limitation, learned counsel pointed out, started running from the date of auction sale and any subsequent disability or inability would not stop the running of time and referred in this context to S.9 of the Limitation Act.S.5 of the Limitation Act did not apply. S.148, counsel submitted, will apply only to cases where time is fixed by the Court or granted by the Court and not to cases where the period for purposes of a particular act is fixed statutorily. As regards the view of the Court below that it could not have been possible for the auction-purchaser to have remitted the amount within the statutory period, counsel