SANNIDHANAM LAKSHMI KANTAYYA Vs. GHATAM SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises a question relating to the interpretation of Order 21, Rule 89 Civil Procedure Code and it arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) In execution of the decree made in S.C.S. No. 94 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Gurazala, for Rs. 300.00 two acres of land belonging to the petitioner was sold on 24-9-1957 for a sum of Rs. 68o.00. On 19-10-1957, the petitioner (Judgment-debtor) deposited a sum of Rs. 363.00 towards compensation payable to the auction-purchaser under Clause (a), Order 21 Rule 89 Civil Procedure Code and for payment to the decree-holder the amount specified in the proclamation of sale for recovery of which the sale was ordered. The balance evidently represented the poundage payable by the judgment-debtor.

(3.) An objection was taken by the decree-holder and the auction-purchaser that the deposit made by the judgment-debtor fell short by Rs. 6-91 nP. and consequently the sale could not be set aside. It must be mentioned here that the amount of Rs. 363.00 could be said to be short by Rs. 6-91 only if the poundage payable by the judgment-debtor was also taken into consideration. Consequent on this objection, the judgment-debtor deposited a further sum of Rs. 10-46nP. with a prayer that the delay in this behalf might be condoned. The attitude adopted by the decree-holder was that the balance of the amount might be accepted as having been deposited in time, the delay condoned and the sale set aside, while the auction-purchaser resisted the application.