FRANCIS Vs. JOHN BRITTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these cases are connected. Appellant in the appeal and the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition is the same person. State Bank of Travancore filed O.S. No. 129 of 1984 and obtained a decree for recovery of money. During the execution proceedings, the second defendant died and deceased defendant's legal heirs were impleaded. The decree schedule property consisting of 42 cents of land at Chettikkadu Muri was brought to sale. In the Court auction conducted on 3.10.2002, the petitioner was the auction purchaser for Rs. 84,001/-. As provided under the auction notice, the petitioner remitted the entire amount in time and the matter was posted to 5.12.2002 for confirmation of the auction.

(2.) On 3.12.2002, beyond the time limit of 60 days from the date of the sale, the first respondent, who is the fifth judgment debtor deposited an amount of Rs.4,205/- being 5% of the purchase price. The purchaser filed E.A. No. 510 of 2002 under O.21 R.89 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale in favour of the petitioner. In E.A. No. 510 of 2002, the date of sale was mentioned as 4.10.2002, instead of 3.10.2002. To the above application, the petitioner filed objection. In the objection, the petitioner has categorically contended that E.A. No. 510 of 2002 is not maintainable, as the deposit was made beyond 60 days. The petitioner further contended that with ulterior motive the first respondent mentioned the date of auction as 4.10.2002 and in addition to this he has absolutely no interest in the decree schedule property.

(3.) On 27.1.2003, after a lapse of more than one month, the first respondent filed E.A.No.58 of 2003 under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order to treat E.A.No.510 of 2002 for setting aside the sale, as filed within time or in the alternative condone one day's delay in making the deposit and filing the said E.A. To E.A.No.58 of 2003, the petitioner filed a detailed objection contending that the delay in depositing the purchase money cannot be condoned by invoking the inherent powers and there is no provision to condone the said delay. Along with E.A.No.58 of 2003, the first respondent also filed E.A.No.59 of 2003 to amend the date of auction mentioned in E.A.No.510 of 2002 as 3.10.2002 instead of 4.10.2002. To the above application as well, the petitioner filed a detailed objection.