DAVE, J.—This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtor against the order of the District Judge, Balotra, dated 9th November 1955, upholding the decision of the Civil Judge, Balotra, dated the 19th February, 1955.

2. The facts giving rise to it are, that Hastimal and his sons Sumer Mal and Pukhraj (respondents) obtained a money decree against appellant Poonam Chand from the court of the Civil Judge, Balotra, on 29th May, 1953. On 18th January, 1954, the decree-holders presented an application for execution and requested for recovery of Rs.5610/10/- after adding costs and interest accruing upto that date. In execution of the said decree, one house belonging to the judgment-debtor was put to sale. On 20th November, 1954, the decree-holder Hastimal was permitted by the executing court to bid at the auction. The auction took place on 14th January, 1955. The highest bid was that of the said decree-holder and so he was declared to be the purchaser of the property. On the 3rd of February, 1955, the validity or the sale wis challenged by the judgment-debtor on several grounds. That application was however,! dismissed by the court on 19th February, 1955. The judgment-debtor then went in appeal but he was unsuccessful and therefore he has approached this Court.

3. The main ground which has been urged in this Court by the appellants learned counsel is, that the purchaser neither paid 25 percent of the purchase money on 14th January, 1955 as required by Or. 21, R. 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even though the court had not dispensed with the requirements of that rule, nor he did deposit within 15 days the amount which was payable to other decree-holders according to sec. 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus he violated the provisions of Or. 21 Ru. 84 and 85. It was contended by learned counsel that out of Rs 1931/- for which the property was sold, the decree-holder was entitled to set off the amount of Rs. 793/13/-only, that Rs. 979/13/-were payable to other decree-holders by way of ratable distribution under sec. 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the latter amount not having been deposited within 15 days, the courts below ought to have set aside the sale. It is pointed out that the respondents deposited the amount of Rs. 976/18/- payable to the other decree-holders on 19th February, 1955, i.e., long after the expiration of the period of 15 days. He has proceeded to urge that the provisions of Or.21, RR.84 and 85 are mandatory as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Manilal Mohanlal Shah Vs. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmed (1) and therefore the sale should be set aside.

4. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the sale took place on 14th January, 1955, that the amount of Rs. 976/13/- was payable to other decree-holders under sec. 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the said amount was deposited on 19th February, 1955 and that no amount was deposited before that date. But, it is contended, that the amount of the purchase-money being much less than the decretal amount, the decree-holder purchaser was entitled to set off the purchase-money against the amount due on the decree and that he was not bound to deposit the money payable to rival decree-holders within 15 days from the date of sale. According to the learned counsel, Or.21, Rr.84 and 85 came into play only if the amount of the purchase-money exceeds the amount due on the decree and that the said Rules do not contemplate that the money payable to rival decree-holders under sec. 73 should also be deposited within the period prescribed therein, even though the sale-price does not exceed the amount due under the decree held by the purchaser.

5. The question which thus arises for determination is, whether the provisions of O. 21, Rr. 84 and 85 have been infringed by the decree-holder Hastimal and whether the sale of the property in his favour is therefore liable to be set aside.

6. Before proceeding to discuss the position of law,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document