D JAGANNADHAM Vs. M KRISHNAVENAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist is the auction purchaser. He purchased property in the Court auction held on 22-11-82 in E.P. No. 63/82, The judgment-debtor deposited the sale amount on 21.1-83, that is, on the 59th day and filed E.A. 51/83 for setting aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 92 C.P.C. Order 21 Rule 92 C.P.C. says that the Court sale shall not be confirmed where the money is deposited within 30 days from the date of the sale. But Article 127 of the Limitation Act provides a period of 60 days from the date of sale for setting aside the sale The petition was in the first instance dismissed by the trial Court. But, on appeal, the order was reversed and the sale was set aside.

(2.) The auction purchaser has therefore now come up in this revision. In the first instance the matter came up before our learned Brother Mukta-dar, J. who referred it to the Division Bench on the ground that there is an anomaly between the provisions of Order 21 Rule 89 read with Rule 92 C.P.C. and Article 127 of the Limitation Act. To resolve this question it is necessary to refer Order 21 Rules 89 and 92 C.P.C. and Article 127 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) Order 21 Rule 89 is as follows: "89. (1) Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree any person claiming an interest in the property sold at the time of the sale or at the time of making the application, or acting for or in the interest of such person, may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in Court, (a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase-money, and (b) for payment to the decree-holder, the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered..