JAGAT BANDHU Vs. VIJAY KAUSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Appellant has filed the present Misc. Appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 18/1/2017 passed by First Additional District Judge, Harda in Execution Case No.C.S. No.16-A/2015. By the said order Additional District Judge has allowed I.A. No.10 filed by the plaintiff, who is respondent no.1 in this case. He had filed an application for deposit of balance of auction amount. Judgment debtor had also filed objection on 10/3/2016 under Order 21 Rule 78, 83, 87, 90, 92, 93, 94 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. The objection raised by the appellant was rejected. Executing Court has passed an order that auction purchaser can deposit the balance amount of Rs.18,58,000/- in CCD of the Court and on deposit of said amount, sale certificate will be issued under Order 21 Rule 94 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that Executing Court has committed an error of law in allowing the auction purchaser to deposit balance amount after lapse of 15 days. He relied on Order dated 21 Rule 85 of Code of Civil Procedure. As per said provision, full amount of purchase money shall be paid by the purchaser into the Court before the Court closes on 15th day from sale of the property. The provision clearly states that balance amount is to be deposited within a period of 15 days of auction. It was also submitted by counsel for the appellant that auction was done on 27/2/2016 and 15 days elapses on 14/3/2016. Therefore, the balance money ought to have been deposited by the auction purchaser before the Court closes on 14/3/2016. In the present case, auction money was allowed to be deposited by the Executing Court after lapse of 11 months. The order passed by the Executing Court is without jurisdiction and violates Order 21 Rule 85 of Code of Civil Procedure. The said provision is mandatory in nature and violation of said provision goes to the root of matter and makes the order null, void and without jurisdiction, therefore, this Court must entertain this Misc. Appeal and quash the impugned order dated 18/1/2017.