RAMSINGH Vs. SHANKARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts out of which this Letters Patent appeal has arisen are not very much in dispute. Shankerlal held a decree for money against ramsingh. In execution of the decree he attached certain agricultural holdings held by the said Ramsingh in bhumiswami rights in village Kalani Tahsil Indore. Three of the holdings were put to sale one by one. The decree holder was allowed to bid with the leave of the Court. The sale prices in respect of the lands are respectively given below : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_405_MPLJ_1972Html1.htm</FRM> The sale was finally knocked down in favour of the decree-holder. The bids were accepted on that date. He was given an exemption under Order 21, rule 84, Civil Procedure Code, dispensing with the deposit of 25 percent on the amount of the purchase money.

(2.) THE dispute has now arisen on account of the decree holder not depositing within 15 days the balance of the purchase money, that is to say before the end of the Court hours of the 26th October, 1965. He, however deposited the amount of Rs. 3437. 55 in Court on 7-4-1967. On the date of the order of confirmation on 18-4-1967 Ramsingh filed an application in the executing court challenging the sales on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 85 Civil Procedure Code and also for contravention of section 165 (7) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. The executing Court disallowed the objections on the ground that they did not fall within the purview of either section 47 or 151 Civil Procedure Code and that Order 21, Rule 90 Civil Procedure Code also could be of no avail as the sale had already been confirmed. The appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court. The single Judge who heard the appeal dismissed the same. The judgment-debtor has now filed this Letters Patent appeal.

(3.) TWO questions have been raised before us. They were also raised before the single Judge. They are : (1) whether a sale can be challenged after its confirmation on the ground that the amount payable by the auction purchaser had not been deposited within 15 days from the bid though the judgment-debtor have not made any prayer in that behalf for a long time and (2)whether an area of 10 acres should have been exempted from each of the plot numbers of agricultural land sold in the auction inspite of the fact that this point was not taken at any stage before the sale.