SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G. Arun, J.
Varghese P. - Revision Petitioner
Versus
Syndicate Bank and others - Respondents
CRP No. 208 of 2020
Decided On : 08-01-2024

Advocate Appeared:
For the Revision Petitioner:- P.S.Binu, Sri. Zubair Pulikkool, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R.S.Kalkura, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The auction purchaser's failure to deposit the balance amount within the stipulated time results in forfeiture of the deposit, with no provision for refund under the CPC.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI Rules 71, 84, 85, and 86 - Auction purchaser's failure to deposit balance amount - The court held that the auction purchaser's failure to deposit the balance amount within the stipulated time does not warrant a refund of the initial deposit, as per the provisions of Order XXI Rule 86, which mandates forfeiture to the Government. (Paras 5, 6)

(B) Court's discretion - The court clarified that the use of 'may' in Order XXI Rule 84 indicates discretion, but the absence of a provision for refund in case of default limits this discretion. (Paras 2, 3)

Facts of the case:

The revision petitioner, an auction purchaser, sought a refund of the deposit after failing to pay the balance amount within the required time, which was dismissed by the execution court.

Findings of Court:

The court found that the provisions of the CPC do not allow for a refund of the deposit in the event of default in payment of the balance purchase money.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court could refund the deposit amount despite the auction purchaser's failure to pay the balance within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the provisions of the CPC clearly outline the consequences of failing to pay the balance amount, including forfeiture of the deposit, and that the auction purchaser's reliance on incorrect provisions does not entitle them to a refund.

Result: The civil revision petition is dismissed.

ORDER :

V.G. Arun, J.

The revision petitioner is the auction purchaser of the immovable property sold in execution of the decree in O.S.No.178 of 2008 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Payyannur. The first respondent herein is the creditor and the second respondent, the principal debtor. The property was brought to sale on 18.01.2020 as per the order in E.P.No.83 of 2011. The petitioner auctioned the property for Rs. 4,26,000/- and deposited 25% of the auction amount, i.e, Rs. 1,06,500/- on the same day. According to the petitioner, he was given the impression that the balance amount of Rs. 3,19,500/- could be deposited within one month of sale. When the petitioner approached the court for depositing the balance amount on 18.02.2020, he was informed that the balance amount ought to have been deposited within 15 days of the sale. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted an application before the execution court, seeking refund of the deposited amount of Rs. 1,06,500/-. The court below having dismissed the application, this revision petition is filed.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that it is not mandatory for the execution court to forfeit the amount deposited in all cases. If the auction purchaser is able to convince the court that the failure to deposit the balance amount within time was not wilful, the court can direct refund of the amount. According to the learned Counsel, the conscious use of the term 'may' in Order XXI Rule 84 of CPC clearly indicates that such discretion is vested with the court.

3. It is contended that the court below grossly erred in relying on Order XXI Rule 71, to find that the amount in deposit could be adjusted towards the deficiency of price, which may happen on re-sale. It is argued that, as per the procedure prescribed in Order XXI Rule 71, the deficiency if any has to be certified by the officer or other person holding the sale and thereupon, the certified amount shall be recoverable from the defaulting purchaser at the instance of either the decree holder or the judgment debtor. The recovery in such cases would be as per the provisions relating to the execution of a decree for the payment of money. Insofar as the property auctioned in the petitioner's favour is not put up for re-sale, Order XXI Rule 71 has no application.

4. In reply, learned Counsel for the first respondent contended that Order XXI Rule 86 provides for forfeiture of the deposit to the Government in case of default in paying the balance purchase money. Such forfeiture shall be effected, after defraying the expenses of the sale conducted. As such, there is no question of refunding the deposit amount.

5. The provisions relating to sale of immovable property are included at Order XXI Rules 82 to 96 of C.P.C. As per Order XXI Rule 84(1), the person declared to be the purchaser in a sale of immovable property shall immediately deposit 25% of the purchase money to the officer or other person conducting the sale. In default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be resold. The time provided for payment of the full amount of purchase money provided in Order XXI Rule 85 is 15 days from the sale of the property. The procedure in default of payment stipulated in Order XXI Rule 86 reads as under;

"Procedure in default of payment

In default of payment within the period mentioned in the last preceding rule, the deposit may, if the court thinks fit, after defraying the expenses of the sale, be forfeited to the Government, and the property shall be resold, and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claims to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may subsequently be sold."

The provision makes it clear that in the event of the purchaser failing to remit the full amount of purchase money, the amount already deposited shall be forfeited to the Government after defraying the expenses of the sale already conducted and the property shall be resold.

6. On the other hand, Order XXI Rule 71 would come into play when there is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top