B.G. CHANDRASEKAR @ SELVA Vs. V. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in A. No. 634 of 2012 in A. No. 4058 of 2011 in E.P. No. 5 of 2001 in C.S. No. 836 of 1996, dated 12.3.2012, wherein the order of the learned Master dated 9.9.2011 directing payment of 2% interest to the third party auction purchaser was set aside, the auction purchaser has directed this appeal. The auction sale was held on 8.6.2011. The appellant was the highest bidder. On 8.6.2011, he had deposited 25% of the bid amount, however, by way of cheque. The balance 75% of the bid amount, has to be deposited within fifteen days thereon. Accordingly, he had deposited, however, by way of cheque. In the meanwhile, the respondent/Judgment debtor deposited the proclamation money plus 5% of the bid amount, within time.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the cheques presented by the auction purchaser both towards 25% and 75% of the bid amount have been encashed. Admittedly, the encashment was beyond the permitted time, namely, 15 days. Taking note of this aspect, the learned Master directed refund of only 2% out of 5%. This was varied by the learned Single Judge, since the mode of payment adopted is not in consonance with law.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the cheque has been presented to the Court Office within the time stipulated under the Rule. Thereafter, encashment of the cheque was within the office procedure and clearance by the bank. The delay has occurred after the prescribed date. The learned counsel also pointed out that the application to set aside the sale was filed not under Order 21 Rule 90, but under Order 21, Rule 89. In such circumstances, the judgment debtor cannot object to the reduction of the amount to 2%. The learned counsel also would point out that the learned Master has exercised the discretion on sound reasoning.