Strict compliance with CPC provisions is mandatory; court delays can justify extensions for deposit payment.

COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P.No.42 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner – auction purchaser aggrieved by the order dated 15.06.2018 passed in I.A.No.794 of 2016 in I.A.No.1609 of 2007 in O.S.No.417 of 2005 by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for dismissing the petition filed by him seeking permission to deposit the balance consideration of the auction value worth of Rs.1,05,30,000/- to the credit of the matter.

2. C.R.P.No.15 of 2021 is filed by the same auction purchaser for allowing the petition filed by the plaintiffs vide I.A.No.859 of 2018 for re-sale of the suit schedule property by forfeiting the amount deposited by the auction purchaser under Order XXI Rules 85 & 86 of CPC.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners in I.A.No.859 of 2018 filed O.S.No.417 of 2005 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. A preliminary decree was passed therein and after it became final, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1609 of 2007 to pass a final decree. The trial court considering that the property could not be partitioned, directed sale of the same. In the sale conducted by the trial court, the petitioner in I.A.No.794 of 2016 stood as the highest bidder offering a sum of Rs.1,40,40,000/-. The auction purchaser made an initial deposit of 5 % i.e. Rs.7,00,000/- on offset price of Rs.1,40,40,000/- and further deposited 20% of the highest bid amount i.e. Rs.28,10,000/- on 29.10.2012, in total deposited a sum of Rs.35,10,000/- to the credit of the case. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed by the claimants. As the matter was prolonging, the auction purchaser wanted to withdraw the said amount by cancelling auction purchase and filed I.A.No.1004 of 2014. The learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad allowed the petition calling for the amount by cancelling auction on 23.04.2014. The petitioners (in I.A.No.859 of 2018) preferred C.R.P.No.1990 of 2014 challenging the said order in I.A.No.1004 of 2014. The High Court allowed the said CRP observing that the sale, which had fetched a substantial amount, could not be set at naught, on the basis of the pendency of a claim petition and directed the trial court to take up I.A.No.2389 of 2012 (the claim petition) and to dispose of the same at the earliest. Subsequently I.A.No.2389 of 2012 was dismissed by order dated 16.10.2015. The claim petitioners therein preferred C.M.A.No.1024 of 2015. The same was also dismissed as not maintainable on 28.09.2016. The claim petitioners preferred C.C.C.A.No.36 of 2017, which was pending. As there was no interim order in the appeal, the auction purchaser filed I.A.No.794 of 2016 to permit him to deposit the balance amount. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.859 of 2018 for forfeiting the amount deposited by the auction petitioner for non-compliance of Order XXI Rules 85 & 86 of CPC.

4. The trial court observing that as per Order XXI Rule 85 of CPC, the auction purchaser had to deposit the entire amount for which the property was knocked down within 15 days, but filed the petition after a long lapse of more than three years after conducting the auction, dismissed the petition filed by the auction purchaser in I.A.No.794 of 2016 and allowed the petition filed by the plaintiffs vide I.A.No.859 of 2018.

5. Aggrieved by the said orders, the auction purchaser preferred these revisions.

6. Heard Sri Pramod Singh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. There was no representation for the respondents, though the matter was posted conditionally.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the trial court failed to appreciate that the petitioner deposited the initial amount within the stipulated period and it was only due to the filing of claim petition by third parties, the balance sale amount could not be deposited, as the title was under cloud. The order passed by the court below was cryptic and it would not refer to the proceedings due to which the delay occurred. The court b