CHERIAN P.V. Vs. GEORGE BABU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third respondent obtained a money decree against respondents 1 and 2 who are husband and wife. In execution of the decree the property of the first respondent was sold on 20/06/2013. It was purchased by the petitioner. On the same day he deposited 25% of the purchase money. The very next day (29/06/2013) the judgment -debtors filed Ext. P1 application under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale. But they did not deposit any amount along with the application. On 03/09/2013 they filed Ext. P4 application to grant them two weeks time "to comply with Order 21 Rule 89". On 20/09/2013 they paid Rs. 5,12,881/ - to the decree -holder, which received it in full satisfaction of its claim under the decree as evidenced by Ext. P7 copy of the receipt. On 27/08/2013 they filed Ext. P9 application for permission to deposit five percent of the purchase price. They deposited in Court 5% of the purchase price apparently on 20/09/2013. On 25/09/2013 the purchaser filed Ext. F6 application to confirm the sale in his favour and to dismiss Ext. P1 application filed by the judgment -debtors to set aside the sale. On 05/10/2013 by Ext. P10 non -speaking order the Court allowed Ext. P9 application. By Ext. P8 common order dated 11/10/2013 the Court allowed Ext. P1 application filed by the judgment -debtors and dismissed Ext. P6 application filed by the purchaser. Thus the sale was set aside. The Court allowed the purchaser to withdraw the purchase money deposited by him as well as 5% of the purchase money deposited by the judgment -debtors. Legality of Ext. P8 and P10 orders are challenged by the auction purchaser. Order 21 Rule 89 and Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 127 of the Limitation Act contain the provisions relating to application to set aside sale on deposit of the purchase price and five percent of the purchase price.

(2.) Order 21 Rule 89 sub -rule 1 mentions

(3.) The right of the first judgment -debtor in this case to maintain an application under Rule 89 is not in dispute. Nor is there any controversy about the amounts and the persons for whose benefit he should have deposited them.