RATAKONDA NARAYANA Vs. T H GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On special leave petition (civil) No. 5811/81) preferred by the Judgment debtor, the Supreme Court of India passed the following order on 24-8-84 in the below mentioned terms: "We are of the view that a fair order to ,nake in the present appeal would be that the appellant should deposit in the executing court the amount paid, by second respondent in respect of the purchase prjce.of the property sold to him with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. from, the date or dates-when such payment was made and also a sum of Rs.4500/- with in four months from today. The sale effected in favour of the second respondent will be set aside, If this amount is not deposited in the executing court within, the time stipulated, the sale will be come absolute".

(2.) In pursuance of the order passed by the Supreme Court of India, the Judgment debtor deposited the money ie., the actual amount for which the auction purchaser purchased the property with interest at 12% p a. and also the 'Sum' of Rs. 4500/- as directed by the Supreme Court of India. The Judgment debtor complied with the direction of the Supreme Court and filed a petition in the executing Court and requested for setting aside the sale. The said application was opposed by the auction purchaser on the ground that the purchase price of property sold to the auction purchaser mentioned in the Supreme Court order can only be inclusive of the poundage, solatium and the cost incurred for purchase of Non-judicial stamps and other expenses.

(3.) The lower Court rejected this contention mainly on the ground that the petition for setting aside the sale initially by the Judgment debtor was filed not under Order 21 Rule 89 C.P.C. but under, Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. which does not require anv deposit of amount for setting aside the sale. As the Judgment debtor has complied with the order of the Supreme Court, he repealed the contention of the auction purchaser and set aside the sale. Aggrieved by the said order the auction purchaser preferred C M.A. No.15/ 89. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal holding that in view of the specific order of the Supreme Court it cannot be said that the purchase price includes the poundage, solatium, etc., as mentioned in Order 21 Rule 89 CPC and also it is not an application for setting aaide the sale under Order 21 Rule 89 C.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition was filed by the auction purchaser.