P RANEMMA Vs. P ANNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed against the order dated 7/9/2010 in E.A.No.112 of 2010 in O.E.P.No.26 of 2010 in O.S.No.71 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. The petitioner is the judgment debtor No.3 (JDr.3) in the said execution petition.

(2.) THE brief fact of the matter is as follows. One P.Jagadeeswara Singh filed O.S.No.71 of 2003 against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 (JDrs 1 and 2) for recovery of money. THE trial Court passed decree on 17.06.2003. THE decree holder (DHr)- first respondent herein, took out execution in O.E.P.No.272 of 2003 for Rs. 25,718/- for attachment and sale of the immovable property of JDrs. THE house property (EP schedule property) of the JDrs was attached and brought to sale. Decree holder purchased the property in the Court auction for a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/-. THE sale became final and it was confirmed. THE Court below issued sale certificate dated 17.03.2010 in favour of the first respondent herein.

(3.) A plain reading of these provisions would show that the sale conducted by the Court in execution of decree shall become final and absolute when no application under Rules 89, 90 or 91 of Order XXI of CPC are made. Any person having interest in the property sold at the time of sale may apply to the Court to set aside the same on depositing for payment to the purchaser a sum equal to 5% of the purchase money and for payment to the decree holder the amount satisfied (sic. specified) in the proclamation of sale. Such amount has to be deposited within a period of sixty days. In this case admittedly the sale certificate was issued on 17.03.2010 and the petitioner did not file any application within sixty days. Dealing with this aspect, the Court below recorded a finding as under. As per Order 21, Rule 92(2), C.P.C., where such application under Rule 89 or Rule 90 or Rule 91 is made and allowed, and where, in the case of an application under Rule 89, the deposit required by that rule is made within sixty days from the date of sale, or in cases where the amount deposited under Rule 89 is found to be deficient owing to any clerical or arithmetical mistake on the part of the depositor and such deficiency has been made good within such time as may be fixed by the Court, the Court shall make an order setting aside the sale. So, as per this Rule, the amount has to be deposited within 60 days from the date of the sale. Since the sale of the E.P.Schedule House was held on 24.04.2009, the amount ought to have been deposited within 60 days from that day, and it would come around 24.06.2009. The present petition itself is filed on 05.05.20.10. So, the relief sought for in the present petition is clearly barred under law.