(1.) IN these cases, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.3.2011 in Ex. no. 15055/2000 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge (CCH -29), Mayo Hall, Bangalore. The brief facts of the cases are as under: The petitioner is an assignee of the degree which is the subject matter of Ex. no. 1923/2000. He is a decree holder in Ex. no. 15160/2005. Respondent no. 1 is the decree holder in Ex. no. 15055/2000. In all these cases, respondent no. 2 is j -he judgment debtor. The aforesaid execution petitions are filed on different dates before the different courts. Therefore, a miscellaneous case was filed in Misc. no. 606/2008 by the petitioner before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, for clubbing the aforesaid cases. The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore by his order dated 10.10.2009 has allowed the said petition and transferred Ex. Case nos. 15055/2008 acid 1923/2000 to CCH no. 29 where Ex. no. 15160/2005 was pending, for disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, all the three cases were clubbed. In the execution cases, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXI Rule 1');">72 r/w. Order XXI Rule 1');">85 of the CPC seeking permission to bid and set off the decrial amount as against the purchase money. The Court below has allowed the application in part. It has permitted the petitioner to bid in the public auction of the property in question. It has also permitted respondent no. 1 herein to bid in the public auction of the said property. The court below has rejected the claim of the petitioner to set off his decrial claim in the course of public auction. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the said order in these writ petitions.
(2.) SRI . Suresh Lokre, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 1 has not made any application under Order XXI Rule 1');">72 of the CPC seeking permission of the execution court to bid in the auction. Therefore, grant of permission by the Court below to respondent no. 1 to bid in the auction is invalid. It is further submitted that having allowed the petitioner to bid in the auction, the court below ought to have allowed him to set off the decrial claim.
(3.) ORDER XXI Rule 1');">72(1) of the CPC states that no holder of a decree in Execution of which property is sold shall, without express permission of the Court, bid for or purchase the property. Order XXI Rule 1');">72(2) which is relevant for our purpose states where a decree holder purchases with such permission, the purchase money 25% and the amount due on the decree may subject to the provisions of Section 73, be set off against one another and the court executing the decree shall enter up satisfaction of the decree in whole or in part accordingly. Rule 1');">84 of Order XXI of the CPC provides for deposit by purchaser and resale on default. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 1');">84 of Order XXI states that where a decree holder is the purchaser and is entitled to set off the purchase money under Rule 72, the Court may dispense with the requirements of this Rule. Rule 1');">85 of order XXI of the CPC provides for time for payment in full of purchase money. It states that the full amount of purchase money payable shall be by paid by the purchaser into Court before the Court closes on the 15th day from the date of sale of the property provided that in so calculating the amount to be so paid into court, the purchaser shall have the advantage of any set off to which he may be entitled under Rule 72.