IMPORTANT POINT
The failure to submit the required stamp duty within the stipulated time does not invalidate a court sale, as the title to the property vests in the auction purchaser upon confirmation of the sale, and the requirement for stamp duty is considered directory rather than mandatory.

ORDER :

Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order of the learned District Munsif, Melur, dated 21.03.2017, in E.A.No.109 of 2017, in E.P.No.79 of 2006 in O.S.No.983 of 1995, by dismissing the Section 47 C.P.C. application.

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Melur, dated 21.03.2017, in E.A.No.109 of 2017, in E.P.No.79 of 2006 in O.S.No.983 of 1995, by dismissing the Section 47 C.P.C. application.

2. The revision petitioners are the judgment debtors. They filed an application under Section 47 of C.P.C with a prayer to declare the sale, dated 02.02.2009, which was confirmed on 11.02.2016 is null and void.

3. According to the petitioners, in pursuance of the money decree, dated 31.08.2001, the property situated in Periyapatti Village along with building bearing Door No.2/72 was brought on sale. The sale proceedings was conducted on 02.02.2009 and subsequently, the same was confirmed on 11.02.2016. According to the petitioner, the said sale proceedings violates the provisions of C.P.C, more particularly, Order 21 Rule 84 and Order 21 Rule 85 C.P.C. It is the submission of the petitioners that as per the Order 21 Rule 84, 25% of the amount should be deposited immediately, and under Rule 85, the remaining 75% of the amount along with stamp duty has to be deposited within 15 days thereafter. Further, according to the petitioners the auction purchasers deposited 25% of the amount, i.e., a sum of Rs.21,000/- on 03.02.2009 and instead of the remaining amount of Rs.59,100/-, has only paid Rs. 59,000/-. It is also the submission of the petitioners that as mandated under Order 21 Rule 85, the general stamps have not been submitted. Therefore, he would contend that the very sale became null and void.

4. Disputing the petitioners' contention, the second respondent / auction purchaser filed a counter statement stating that, every sale proceedings before the Court, would only take place in evening at 03.00 Clock, and that even the impugned sale, dated 02.02.2009 was conducted on the said date at 03.00 pm. Hence, the 25% amount has been paid on the very next date. Like wise, the remaining amount of 75%, viz. Rs.59,100/- was paid on 09.02.2009. Therefore, there is no violation of any of the provisions of C.P.C. The respondent would also submit that on 18.02.2009, at the instigation of the petitioner, his relative filed a claim petition and the said claim was ultimately dismissed on 11.02.2016, after a period of almost 7 years. It is the submission of the auction purchasers that, after the dismissal of the claim petition on the very same day, the sale was confirmed. The respondent would further submit that when he filed an application for delivery of possession, the petitioner came up with the instant application, to set aside the sale. According to the auction purchaser, the instant application is devoid of merits and has been filed only with an intention to prolong the litigation.

5.After hearing both sides, the Court below in it's detailed order, has dismissed the application, with the finding that, when the auction was completed on 03.00 pm, on 02.02.2009, there was no possibility for the auction purchaser to pay the 25% amount in the Bank, on the same day. Hence, in the next day, as per lodgement challan, issued by the Court the auction purchaser has paid 25% of the amount. The learned trial Judge has also found that the remaining 75% of the amount, viz. Rs.59,100/- was paid on 09.02.2009. Therefore, concluded that there was no violation of any of the provisions of C.P.C., and has ultimately dismissed the application.

6. Aggrieved with the order of the Court below, the petitioners / judgment debtors have come up with the instant revision petition.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the law laid down by this Court and it is also the submis