1. Auction sale set aside by executing court for non-deposit of stamp duty — Revision by auction purchaser. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(AP) 1281
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT AMARAVATI
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
Kemburu Appalanaidu - Petitioner
Versus
Vavilapalli Ramakrishna and Another. – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 2522 of 2025
Decided On : 16-03-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Srinivas Ambati
For Respondents:Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are ex parte.
For the Petitioner: Srinivas Ambati
For Respondents:Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are ex parte.
Failure to deposit stamp duty for a sale certificate doesn't constitute a material irregularity in an auction sale provided the purchase price is paid within the statutory period, as the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes no specific timeline for stamp duty deposits.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI Rules 84, 85 and 86 - Execution of Decree - Auction Sale - Payment of purchase price vs. deposit of stamp duty - Where the full amount of purchase money is deposited within the statutory period of fifteen days as prescribed under Rule 85, the primary requirement of the auction purchaser is satisfied - The deposit of stamp amount is subsequent to the conduct of the sale, and failure to deposit the same does not constitute a material irregularity in the conduct of the sale (Para 15) - The Code of Civil Procedure does not prescribe any particular time limit for the deposit of non-judicial stamp papers or the relevant stamp duty amount (Para 16).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was the successful bidder in an auction conducted by the executing court to realize a decretal amount. The petitioner deposited one-fourth of the bid amount on the auction date and the remaining balance within the statutory period of fifteen days. However, a third party had filed a claim petition during the execution proceedings, which remained pending for several months. The executing court set aside the auction sale using a docket order, reasoning that non-judicial stamps were not filed within fifteen days from the date of the sale.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had strictly complied with the statutory timelines for depositing the purchase money. The failure to deposit stamp duty was not a statutory default, especially since a third-party claim petition was pending, which delayed the process. The court observed that the executing court erred in setting aside the sale for a procedural delay that is not mandated by a specific statutory timeline in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: Whether the failure to deposit stamp duty for a sale certificate within fifteen days from the date of auction constitutes a material irregularity sufficient to set aside the auction sale.
Ratio Decidendi: Payment of the full purchase price within the time prescribed under Order XXI Rule 85 is the critical statutory obligation. The deposit of stamp duty is a subsequent formality; its absence or delay does not amount to a material irregularity in the conduct of the sale and cannot justify setting aside the auction.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued CPC prescribes no time limit for stamp duty deposit; pendency of third-party claim prevented deposit. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. Non-deposit of stamp duty is not a material irregularity under Order XXI Rule 90; CPC does not fix a time limit. (Para 15 , 16 )
4. Failure to deposit stamp duty after auction sale does not constitute a material irregularity warranting setting aside sale. (Para 15 , 16 )
5. Civil revision allowed; impugned order set aside; executing court directed to process stamp duty deposit and complete sale. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
6. Does non-deposit of stamp duty after a court auction constitute a material irregularity under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC?
No. Failure to deposit stamp duty is not a material irregularity in conducting the sale under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC. (Para 15 , 16 )
7. Is there a time limit prescribed under CPC for deposit of stamp duty by an auction purchaser?
No. The Code of Civil Procedure does not prescribe any particular time limit for deposit of stamp duty or non-judicial stamp papers. (Para 16 )
8. Can pendency of a third-party claim petition justify delay in depositing stamp duty by the auction purchaser?
Yes. Pendency of a claim petition filed by a third party is a valid justification for not depositing stamp duty, as no default or liability attaches. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 )
9. What is the time limit for deposit of the full purchase money by an auction purchaser under Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 CPC?
One-fourth on sale date; the balance within fifteen days from the date of sale as per Order XXI Rule 85 CPC, as applied in Andhra Pradesh. (Para 8 , 9 )
ORDER :
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, Ld. Counsel for the Revision Petitioner.
2. Notice was ordered to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 by my Ld. Predecessor on 26.09.2025. Notice sent to the Respondent No.1 was served on 11.11.2025 and this fact was noted in the Order of this Court dated 17.11.2025. Despite having received notice on 11.11.2025, the Respondent No.1 had not evinced any interest to enter appearance either in person or through the Counsel till date. Accordingly the Respondent No.1 is set ex parte. Insofar as the Respondent No.2 is concerned, the notice sent to him got returned with an endorsement 'Door Locked'. This fact was also noted in the order dated 17.11.2025.
3. On 02.12.2025, having regard to the facts of this case, this Court has suspended the E.P Proceedings pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam.
4. On 12.12.2025, this Court had allowed the I.A.No.02 of 2025 filed by the Petitioner herein and permitted the Petitioner to serve on Respondent No.2 through substituted service. Petitioner has published the Notice on 28.12.2025 in 'Eenadu Telugu News Daily'. Since the said Respondent had failed to enter appearance either in person or through Counsel, despite the Notice being published in the news paper on 09.03.2026, this Court had set the Respondent No.2 ex parte.
5. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the Docket Order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam dated 21.08.2025 in E.P.No.1/2023 in O.S.No.31/2016. Short Order which is impugned herein is usefully extracted hereunder:
“NEAT COPY OF DOCKET ORDER IN EP.NO.01/2023 IN OS.NO.31 OF 2016
DATED: 21-0802025
NJ STAMPS
NJ STAMPS NOT FILED WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF KNOCK DOWN THE SALE. HENCE SALE TO BE SET ASIDE. ACCORDINGLY SALE IS SET-ASIDE AND ISSUE FRESH PUBLICATION IN PRAJA SAKHTI EDITION ON OR BEFORE 08-10-2025. POSTED FOR FURTHER HEARING.
CALL ON 15-10-2025.
SD/-
21-08-2025”
6. The facts in the present case are as under:
(i) The Revision Petitioner is the successful auction purchaser of the subject property. The Respondent No.1 herein/Plaintiff filed O.S.No.31/2016 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam against the Respondent No.2 herein for recovery of money of Rs.12,94,000/- based on a Promissory Note dated 10.09.2014.
(ii) After a complete trial, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam was pleased to pass the Judgment and Decree in favour of the Plaintiff on 19.02.2018 with a direction to pay decretal amount with interest. The facts would indicate that the unsuccessful Defendant/Judgment Debtor filed A.S.No.67/2018 before the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam. The Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss A.S.No.67/2018, as being devoid of any merit, vide Order dated 22.07.2019, thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court.
7. As the amounts have not been paid by the Judgment Debtor, the Plaintiff/Decree Holder filed E.P.No.1/2023 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam in O.S.No.31/2016 seeking sale of the E.P Schedule Property for realization of the decreetal amount. This Execution Petition has been filed with a prayer for conduct of auction in respect of the properties mentioned in Item Nos.2 & 3 of the Suit Schedule. During the pendency of this Execution Petition, the third party namely one Sri Tulugu Ramana Murthy filed E.A.No.20 of 2024 on or about 25.03.2024 in E.P.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.31 of 2016 under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C seeking to declare him as absolute owner of the Schedule Item No.1 of the Petition Schedule Property and for Costs of the Petition. As indicated earlier, the plaint consisted of Item Nos.1, 2 & 3 in the Plaint Schedule Property. The Petitioner, who is the bonafide auction purchaser, has contested against the third party, who had filed E.A.
8. After following the statutory procedures, the E.P. Schedule Property was brought for auction during the pendency of E.A.No.20
