H S SIDDAPPA Vs. LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this revision petition, was the highest bidder in an auction sale of immovable properties held in Ex. 100/63 on the file of the Munsiff, Arasikere. He deposited one-fourth of the bid amount at the conclusion of the auction sale. By his order dated 18-1-64, the learned Munsiff purported not to accept the bid on the ground that it was too low. The amount deposited was directed to be refunded to the petitioner and a fresh sale was directed to be held. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Munsiff, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

(2.) Mr. Narasimha Murthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that officer conducting the sale had exercised his discretion and accepted the bid, that the Court had not reserved to itself the discretion to accept or not to accept the bid made at the auction sale under its order, that the petitioner who was the highest bidder became the purchaser and that the Court had no power not to accept the bid and to direct a fresh sale.

(3.) The sale proclamation in this case was issued in the form No. 29 of Appendix E to the Code of Civil Procedure. Condition No. 3 of the sale proclamation states that it shall be in the discretion of the Court or officer holding the sale to decline acceptance of the highest bid when the price offered appears so clearly inadequate as to make it advisable to do so.