SUBBAMMAL Vs. P GURUSAMY THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revision petitions arise out of execution proceedings. In E. P. No. 36 of 1972 in O. S. No. 116 of 1971 on the file of the court of the Subordinate judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, three lots of properties were sold in court auction in pursuance of one and the same decree and the said three lots were purchased by three different third parties. The respective auction purchasers made the deposit of 25 per cent of the purchase money in accordance with Order 21, rule 84, C. P. C. The balance of purchase money was also deposited within the fifteen days period as contemplated under Rule 85 of Order 21. However, in each of the three cases, the deposit of general stamp was not proper. Though general stamps had been deposited, the same were deficient in each of the three cases. Eight days after the 15 days period prescribed under Rule 85, the deficient stamps were deposited by the respective auction purchaser and applications were filed for excusing the delay in depositing the said deficient stamps. This was opposed by the judgment-debtor but the executing court has allowed the three execution applications filed by the auction purchasers holding that under the circumstances of the case, the delay in the deposit of stamps had to be condoned. The three revision petitions are filed by the judgment-debtor (first defendant in the suit), challenging the decision of the executing court in the said three applications filed by the auction purchasers.

(2.) I am quite clear that the order of the executing court in allowing the execution applications filed by the auction purchasers in one without jurisdiction. Under Rule 85 of Order 21, not only the full amount of purchase money payable but also the general stamps for certificate (or the amount required for such stamps) shall be deposited into court before the court closes on the 15th day from the date of sale of the property. If the purchaser is the decree holder himself, the proviso to the above-said rule says, that in calculating the amount to be so paid into court, he shall have the advantage of any set-off to which he may be entitled under Rule 72. However, this proviso has no application with regard to the general stamps to be deposited. Further, in this case, the auction purchasers are third parties and therefore, the proviso to Rule 85 has no application at all. Thus under Rule 85, the purchasers ought to have deposited the full amount of the purchase money and also the full general stamps for certificate before the court closes on the 15th day from the date of the sale of the property. Admittedly, in this case, the three auction purchasers though have deposited the full amount of purchase money and part of the general stamps, there was deficiency in general stamps. The deficiency came to be made up only eight days after the 15 days period prescribed in Rule 85. It would appear that the auction purchasers had made a mistake in calculating the general stamps required for the certificate and that is how there was deficiency in the deposit of general stamps. Whatever be the reason for the deficiency, the fact remains that the requirement under Rule 85 had not been fully complied with.

(3.) WHAT is the effect of non-compliance of Rule 85 is the question. Has the executing court jurisdiction to extend time for depositing either the purchase money or the general stamp? I am quite clear that the court has no such jurisdiction.