ANANTHAN SREEDHARAN Vs. SANKARAN SUKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the judgment debtor. He filed E.A.93 of 1990 to review the order confirming the sale. E.A. 92 of 1990 was filed to extend time for deposit of the sale amount Both petitions were dismissed by the executing Court.

(2.) The only contention of the revision petitioner is that the respondent (decree holder) did not pay the required amount for the stamp paper for the certificate under R.94 and so the sale is a nullity. Contention of the respondent is that R.85 which is substituted by notification in Kerala Gazette dated 21-12-1965 and which came into force on 1-1-1966 stands repealed in view of S.979 (1) of the C.P.C. Amendment Act 104 of 1976 and so non payment of the required amount for the stamp paper within 15 days from the date of sale is not in any way detrimental to the sale. R.85 (Kerala) reads:

(3.) Construing S.97(1) the Supreme Court in Ganpat Giri v. Second Additional District Judge, Ballia (AIR 1986 S.C. 589) held thus: