DAKSHAYANI Vs. BRANCH MANAGER INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the course of execution proceedings certain properties were brought to sale. The properties were put to sale by auction and the auction was conducted on 28-10-94. The auction purchaser deposited the amount on 29-10-94. The executing Court accepted the bid and confirmed the sale by an order made on 18-11-1995. This order is called in question in this petition. The principal contention put forth before this Court is that the petitioner challenged the same on various grounds and before accepting the bid and confirming the sale, the executing Court ought to have examined whether there was due compliance with the terms of Order 21, Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 21, Rule 84 of the Civil Procedure Code states as follows :

(2.) IN Savithramma's case it was noticed that as the bid was accepted by the Court and inasmuch as there was a strike in the State Bank on the date on which the bid was accepted, it was not possible to deposit 25% of the amount of consideration in the bank and the next day was a holiday, therefore he deposited on the next working day i. e. , on 21st October, 1971. This Court took the view that the deposit made on the day immediately next available to do the act contemplated under law was due compliance with Order 21, Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure and such compliance would render the amount paid immediately after such declaration as acceptance of the bid. Inasmuch as there is apparent conflict between the view expressed in Savithramma's case and in S. V. Kanakaraj's case, the matter has been referred to the Division Bench.

(3.) THE question that falls for consideration is as to what is the meaning to be attributed to the expression that "the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of 25% of the amount of purchase money. " It is not unknown in law that certain acts have to be done immediately on the occurring of certain events and if such acts are not done accordingly, the same cannot be done subsequently. Under Article 134a of the Constitution an oral application has to be made seeking certificate of fitness to appeal to Supreme Court immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment by the High Court. The meaning of the expression "immediately after pronouncement of the judgment" came up for consideration before this Court in Keshava S. Jamkhandi v. Ramachandra S. Jamkhandi, AIR 1981 Kant 97. This Court took note of the object of using such expression. It was held therein that the object of the provision has to be borne in mind. The use of the expression "immediately" is to avoid unnecessary delay and such expression is used to convey a sense of urgency and it is impossible to catalogue all possible situations where oral application as having been made immediately. Adopting this principle of interpretation to the present context, the expression "immediately after the declaration of the purchase" such amount will have to be paid as expeditiously as possible, that is, all steps in regard to deposit of such amount will have to be taken without undue loss of time.