The court has the jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the balance amount in an auction sale, even if the parties have agreed to a specific time for deposit, if the reasons given by the party seeking the extension are acceptable.

These petitioners are filed to set aside the Order dated 20-4-1989 in O.S. No.87 of 1989 and to implead the petitioner herein as second respondent in the appeal. O.S. No.87 of 1989 came to be filed against the order in Application No.1385 of 1989 in Application No.5578 of 1988 in C.S. No.34 of 1983. It was in Application No.5578 of 1988, the highest offer made by the appellant at Rs. 23,00,000/- was accepted, and it was directed to deposit the amount with the plaintiff Bank on or before 10-3-1989, and that the plaintiff could appropriated Rupees 15,00,000/ - as per order dated 26-7-1988. The remuneration of the auctioneer was fixed at Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter the appellant filed Application No.1385 of 1989 asking for extension of time till 5-4-1989 for paying the balance amount stating therein the reasons which had necessitated the request for extension of time. This was rejected by a cryptic order "no grounds to extend time are made out. Dismissed." It is against this Order dated 14-3-1989, O.S.A. No.87 of 1989 was filed and it was allowed for reasons stated therein by taking note of the fact that amounts had since been deposited. It is thereafter these petitions are filed stating that though the petitioner herein in ranked as fifth defendant in the suit, without impleading the defendants, the application for extension of time had been filed, and in the appeal also, they were not impleaded, and that presently there is an offer for Rs. 23,50,000/- from one Priya Exports (P.) Ltd., and if the Order in the C.S.A. is set aside, it could enable defendants to get a better price and reduce the liability to the plaintiff Bank.

2. Mr. Vedantham Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, in Application No.1385 of 1989, and in the appeal, defendants ought to have been impleaded as parties; but plaintiff would point out that the highest offer made by the appellant was accepted by agreement arrived at between the parties; and therefore, non-impleadment cannot be complained of. In the order of the learned Judge dated 3-3-1989, it is stated as follows:-

"....The earnest money deposited by the unsucessful bidders was refunded by the auctioneers and all the parties agreed that the sale of machineries, raw materials, plot and buildings may be confirmed in favour of the highest bidder viz., M/s. Sri Balaji Builders...." *

Yet, what Mr. Vedantham Srinivasan, learned Counsel would submit is that, it was on the specific understanding that the amount be deposited by 10-3-1989, a consent having been given, thereafter the highest bidder cannot ask either for extension in their absence or reply upon the said order to deposit the amount later on. In (it is) seen from the order that it was the Court which fixed the date for depositing the amount, and the consent of parties was confined only to the price for which the property could be sold.Therefore, if acceptable reasons exist, the Court has the jurisdiction to extend the time and need not look to the consent of parties. As would be pointed out later on, even in a case where any compromise is arrived at between the parties, still the Court has the jurisdiction to extend time. Hence, it cannot be contended that the Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time; but as to whether the circumstances of the case warrant extension of time or not, is left to the Court to decide; and if it is to reject it or grant it; it must state the reasons, so that the parties may know as to why in spite of certain materials placed before it, their pleas are rejected, and equally, the other party could know as to why the petition is ordered. Learned Counsel Mr. Vedantham Srinivasan, refers to Manilal Mohanlal Shah v. Sardar Syed Ahmed Sayeed Mahmad, 1954 AIR(SC) 349, 1954 SCJ 509, 1955 (1) SCR 108, 1954 (2) MLJ 55, 57 BomLR 10, 67 MLW 632, 1972 AIR(All) 353 : 1954 AIR(SC) 349, 1954 SCJ 509, 1955 (1) SCR 108, 1954 (2) MLJ 55, 57 BomLR 10, 67 MLW 632, 1972 AIR(All) 353 wherein it was held that non