Stipulated period fixed by Code can not be extended by Court.

1. The short and important question arises in this Revision Petition viz., whether the time stipulated under Order 21, Rule 85, C.P.C. could be extended by the Court?

2. This Revision Petition is directed against the Order of the Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District in E.A.No.178 of 2003 in E.P. No. 18 of 2002 in O.S. No. 146 of 1999, dated 27.1.2004 declining to extend the time stipulated under Order 21, Rules 84 & 85, C.P.C. Auction Purchaser is the Revision Petitioner.

3. Brief facts are as follows:

E.P. No. 18 of 2002 was filed by the Decree Holder to execute the money decree in O.S. No. 146 of 1999. In the Execution Proceedings, the immovable property was brought for sale. In the auction held on 3.11.2003, the Revision Petitioner became a successful bidder for a sum of Rs.2,01,000. He paid a sum of Rs.50,250 towards 1/4th sale amount as contemplated under Order 21, Rule 84, C.P.C. Balance 3/4th amount of Rs.1,54,810 has to be paid within a period of two weeks on or before 17.11.2003. But the Revision Petitioner has not paid the amount. He filed E.A. No. 173 of 2003 seeking for extension of 10 days time for payment of balance amount of Rs.1,54,810.

4. The Respondent-Judgment Debtor resisted the Application contending that as contemplated under the Code, the Auction Purchaser ought to have deposited 3/4th amount on or before 17.11.2003 and that the Court cannot extend the time under Section 148 r/w 151, C.P.C.

5. In consideration of the submissions of both sides, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the Petition holding that the time stipulated under Order 21, Rule 84, C.P.C. is mandatory and that there are no valid grounds to extend the mandatory time stipulated under the Code.

6. Assailing the impugned Order, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that the Executing Court ought to have extended the time for payment of balance purchase money. It was further contended that the Executing Court erred in observing that the Court has no power to extend the time for payment of purchase money. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner placed reliance upon the decisions in Ashok Kumar Kedia v. Balaji Builders and another, AIR 1990 Mad. 232 and Sint. Periyakkal and others v. Snit. Dakshyani, AIR 1983 SC 428.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that 15 days time stipulated under Order 21, Rule 85 is mandatory and the mandatory time stipulated under the Statute cannot be extended by the Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Respondents-Judgment Debtors placed reliance upon number of decisions.

8. It is to be pointed out that Order 21, Rules 84, 85 and 86 are mandatory. If there is no compliance of these mandatory provisions, there would be no sale at all and the Court is bound to Order resale. As per Order 21, Rule 84, on every sale of immovable property, the auction purchaser shall immediately pay twenty five percent of the amount of his purchase money and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be resold. The requirement that 25% of purchase money should be deposited before the Court immediately is mandatory.

9. As per Order 21, Rule 85, the full amount of purchase money shall be paid by the auction purchaser into Court before the Court closes on the 15th day from the sale of the property. In case of default to pay the amount, time cannot be extended either under Section 148, C.P.C. or invoking the inherent power of the Court under Section 151, C.P.C.

10. Contending that the Court has jurisdiction to extend the time to pay the purchase money under Section 148, C.P.C., the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner relied upon the decision in Ashok Kumar Kedia v. Balaji Builders and another, AIR 1990 Mad. 232. The said case arose out of the Suit on the Original Side of the High Court. In A. No. 5578 of 1988 in C.S. No. 34 of 1983, the highest offer made by the Appellant at Rs.23,00,000 was accepted and