ROSALIV. versus TAICO BANK AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1169 · Decided: 23-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

> 
ROSALIV. 
A 
-. 
v. 
TAI CO BANK AND ORS. 
JANUARY 23, 2007 
[S.B.SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 21 Rule 84-Deposit by purchaser-Immovable property-
Auction sale of-Immediate deposit of 25% of purchase money- c 
Consequences on default-Immovable property sold in auction sale to the 
highest bidder-As the said sale was conducted at about 4.00 p.m. and 
keeping in view of the fact that the banks at that time were closed, the 
Court directed the auction purchaser to deposit 25% of the sale amount 
by the next day-Auction purchaser deposited the said amount on the next 
day and also deposited the full purchase money within the stipulated time 
D 
in terms of 0. 21 R. 85-However, the Executing Court set aside the 
) 
auction sale on the grounds that 25% of the purchase money was not 
deposited on the day of the auction sale and also the auction sale was 
confirmed before the expiry of 30 days-High Court affirmed the said 
decision-Correctness of-Held: In a given situation, the term "immediately" 
E 
may mean "within a reasonable time"-Where an act is to be done within 
a reasonable time, it must be done immediately-The auction purchaser 
could not deposit 25% of _the purchase amount on the same day of auction 
sale as the banks were closed at that point of time-Hence, deposit of 25% 
: 
of the purchase money on the next day did not render the auction sale 
) 
void-The auction sale cannot be set aside merely because it was confirmed 
F 
within a period of 30 days from the date of acceptance of the bid 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Principles of construction-Literal Rule-Held: Where literal meaning 
leads to anomaly and absurdity, it should be avoided-Common sense 
Q, 
construction should be taken recourse to in certain cases. 
Words & Phrases: 
)'-
"Immediately"-Meaning of-In the context of Order 21 Rule 84 of 
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
H 
1169 
1170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 1 S.C.R 
A 
Maxims: 
B 
c 
D 
"Actus Curiae neminem gravabit" and "Lex non cogit ad 
impossibilia "-Meaning of-Explained. 
One 'M' filed a suit against respondent No. 2 for realization of some 
amount owing and due to it. The suit was decreed and the decree was 
transferred for execution. A proclamation of the sale of the suit property 
was issued whereupon an auction sale was held. In the said auction sale one 
'MH' was the highest bidder. As the said sale was conducted at about 4.00 
p.m. and keeping in view of the fact that the banks at that time were closed, 
the Court directed the auction purchaser to deposit 25% of the sale amount 
by the next day. The auction purchaser deposited 25% of the sale amount 
the next day and deposited the balance amount subsequently. 
Respondent No. 3, in the meanwhile, had instituted a suit for specific 
performance of contract against respondent No. 2 against the self·same 
property for which a certain sum was said to have been paid by way of 
advance. The suit was decreed and the appeal preferred thereagainst was 
dismissed. 
After the auction sale was confirmed, respondent No. 3 filed an 
E 
application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
The auction sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was directed to be 
issued to the auction purchaser. Sale certificate on a stamp paper, which 
had been furnished in the meanwhile, was issued by the Court. 
p 
The husband of the auction purchaser transferred his right, title and 
interest in the said property in favour of the appellant in terms of a 
registered deed of sale. But the appellant was not impleaded as a party in 
the said execution proceedings. Respondent No. 3, however, obtained a 
warrant of delivery of possession of the said property in her favour. 
G 
The appellant obstructed in taking possession pursuant to the said 
warrant of delivery of possession and eventually filed an application under 
Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 100 and 101 of the Code. From the objection filed 
by respondent No. 3, it transpired that the auction sale had allegedly been 
set aside at the instance of the decree holder on the premise that the sale 
H 
was void as it was confirmed before expiry of 30 days from the date of 
y 
I 
) 
ROSALIV. v. TAICOBANK 
1171 
acceptance of the bid and other litigations. 
The High Court dismissed the revision application filed by the appellant 
on the ground that the 25% of the bid amount was not deposited immediately 
as mandated in Order XXI Rule 84 of the Code and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.