LexBALRAM S/O BHASA RAM versus ILAM SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A BALRAM S/0 BHASA RAM v. ILAM SINGH AND ORS. AUGUST 23, 1996 [ B [J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL JJ.] Civil Procedure Code, 1908 order XXl Rules 66, 72, 84, 85, 86 and 90. Execution of Decree-Auction Sale of Agricultural Land-Appellant c bidding at the sale with pennission of court-Non compliance of order XX/ Rule 85 renders the auction sale void-Judgment debtor can not be dispos- sessed when the auction purchaser does not deposit the entire sale considera- tion within 15 days. The appellant decree holder obtained a money decree against D respondent No. 1 the judgment debtor. The appellant filed an application for Execution of decree for rc~covery of decretal amount by sale of a large tract of agricultural land. The appellant bid at the auction sale with the permission of the court. Bid was accepted. No deposit was made by the appellant on the date of auction and he claimed adjustment of decretal E amounts against the sale price. Even after set off of decretal amount there was shortfall in the sale price. The appellant deposited balance amount to make it foll sale price after expiry of prescribed period. However amount ~ deposited fell short of the full sale price. The Executing Court accepted the amount taking the view that shortage was due to mistake of court office and held. that court has inherent power to correct its own mistake. Judg· F ment debtor's objection to validity of sale was rejected and revision filed by the judgment debtor against order of Executing Court was also dis- missed. The Judgment debtor filed writ petition before the High Court. re- High Court by interim order dated 19.12.1986 stayed the further proceed· ings for confirmation of sale subject to the condition that the judgment G debtor deposited the entire decretal amount within 2 months. The judg· ment debtor deposited the entire decretal amount on 9.1.1987. Executing Court proceeded with the execution and confirmed the sale on 4.5.1987 and gave possession of land to the appellant. H The High Court held that the full amounts of sale price not being 104 A B c D 106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 2 . .1. The proviso to rule 85 is enacted for the benefit of the purchaser when he is the decree holder and is entitled to the advantage of any set off under r'Ule 72. The proviso to rule 85 does not relieve the judgment debtor or the 1requirement of depositing the full amount by taking advantage of set off. (114-D-E] 2,.2. Any mistake made while claiming the set off which results in failure to deposit the full a.mount of purchase money within 15 days of the date of sale renders the decree holder purchaser liable to the same adverse conse~1uences which would ensure to any other purchaser due to non-com- pliance or rule 85. [114-E-F] :l.3. The provisions iin order XXI relating to sale of property begin- ning with rule 64 clearly indicate the responsibility of decree holder in calculating the figure of the decretal amount in drawing up of the sale proclamation. [112-C-D] 3. Sale proclamation is drawn up by the executing court after notice to thf' decree holder. Amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered is stated in the sale proclamation on the basis or the duly singed and verified statement made by the decree holder which accompanies the decree holder's application for an order of sale. A mistake for which decree E holder himself is responsible can not furnish a grounds to the decree hold1!r to avert the adver'Se consequences on him of his failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of rule 85. [113-G-H; 114-A; CJ F G 4. Duty to pay the full amount of purchase money within the presi:ribed period of 15 days from the date of sale of property is cast on the 1mrchaser by virtue of rule 85 of order XXI and entire responsibility to make full compliance of the mandatory provision is his. [114-D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2901 of 1991. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.90 of the Allahabad High Comt in Civil W.P. No. 21230 of 1996. Satish Chandra and J.M. Khanna for the Appellant. H J.P. Goyal,,R.P. Goyal and Rajesh for the Respondents. - ..... BALRAM v. ILAM SINGH (J.S. VERMA; J.] 107 ~ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by J.S. VERMA, J. The appellant obtained a money decree against respondent No. 1 on 25.12.1982. On 2.1.1983 the appellant filed an applica- tion for execution of the decree by recovery of the amount of Rs. 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.