LALA RAM Vs. BHAIANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LALA Ram appli cant No. 1 obtained a simple money decree against Bhajani, opposite party. In execution of the decree, some Bhumidhari land of the judgment-debtor was attach ed. On May 25. 1963, the Munsif (exe cuting Court) ordered the issue of the sale proclamation, fixing September 14, 1963, for the sale. On May 27, 1963, the warrant of sale was issued, directing the Amin to sell the attached property by auction. The Amin was directed to return the warrant by September 16, 1963, with an endorsement certifying the manner in which it had been executed. The Amin held the auction on September 14. 1963. The highest bid of Girraj ap plicant No. 2 of Rs. 1, 200.00 was accepted bv the Amin and. on the same date, Girraj deposited with the Amin a sum of Rs. 300.00. being 25 per cent of the pur chase money. The Amin then returned the warrant together with his report to the Munsif and on September 16, 1963, the Munsif passed an order "bid is ap proved". On October 15, 1963, the judg ment-debtor filed an application under Order XXI. Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale. On Nov ember 6, 1963. the Munsif dismissed the application as time-barred, holding that it had been filed beyond the period of Limitation of 30 days from September 14, 1963, the dale of the sale. Two dayslater, on November 8, 1963, the Munsif passed the following order:-

(2.) THE ceal question, which arises for consideration in this case, is whether the date of the sale is September 14, 1963, when the Amin auctioned the attached property, or September 16, 1963, when the Munsif anproved the bid. Under Article 166 of the Limitation Act of 1908, Limitation for making an application under O. XXI, Rule 90 is 30 days from "the date of the sale". Admittedly, the application filed by the judgment-debtor is beyond 30 days from September 14, 1963, but within 30 days from September 16, 1963. In allowing the appeal, the District Judge has observed:-

(3.) IN Ratnasami Pillai v. Sabapathy Pillai, AIR 1925 Mad 318, it was held that, when a court sale takes place, the sale in favour of a particular individual is not complete unless and until it receives the confirmation of the Court and that it Is the acceptance of the Court that consti tutes the contract. In this case, the auc tion was held by the Receiver and Ratna sami Pillai was the highest bidder. When the bids were taken before the Court for confirmation, it refused to accept Ratnasami Pillai's bid and directed a re-sale. It appears that, in this case, the Receiver had not accepted the highest bid of Ratna sami Pillai. The contention before the High Court was that Ratnasami Pillai having made the highest bid, there was a concluded contract between him and the receiver. It is this contention which was repelled. Therefore this case also does not lay down any general proposition of law which can be applied to the present case. In Surendra Mohan v. Manmathanath Banerji, AIR 1931 Cal 583the Calcutta High Court, following the decision of the Patna High Court in AIR 1923 Pat 525 (supra), observed: