RAMESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROPERTY belonging to M/s R.K. Fancy Twisters (judgment- debtor), which was mortgaged with the State Bank of India (decree-holder) was ordered to be sold at an action sale vide order dated 21.8.1997 of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panipat. On 19.9.1997, the auction sale took place so far as land measuring 16 Marlas, which is part of killa No. 5/16/3 situated in village Shiva Kheri, Tehsil and District Panipat is concerned. As many as 23 persons participated in the auction. Ramesh Kumar Verma (petitioner herein) was the highest bidder. He offered to purchase the property at the rate of Rs. 102/- per square metre. His bid was accepted. As per him, he deposited 25% of the auction money with the Tehsildar at the spot, who conducted the auction immediately on the fall of the hammer. Tehsildar deposited the said money in the Treasury on 26.9.1997. On 3.10.1997, auction purchaser filed application before the Court seeking permission to deposit balance amount. Judgment-debtor filed objections to this application inter alia saying that sale is void ab initio as 25% of the auction money had not been deposited by him at the spot with the fall of hammer on 19.9.1997. He filed reply to the objections controverting the allegations made in the objection petition. J.D. filed independent objections on 15.10.1997 assailing the auction sale on various grounds. On 21.2.1998. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panipat (Executing Court) set aside the auction sale on the ground that 25% of the auction money had not been deposited with the auctioneer at the spot with the fall of the hammer and as such the sale was irregular.

(2.) NOT satisfied with this order dated 21.2.1998 of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panipat (Executing Court), Ramesh Kumar Verma auction purchaser has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the auction purchaser had deposited 25% of the sale money amounting to Rs. 12342/- with the Court auctioneer at the spot and he was not to blame if the auctioneer could not deposit this amount in Treasury on the next working day. He submitted that the auctioneer deposited the amount on 26.10.1997 in the Treasury and the auctioneer has given detailed reasons in his report submitted by him to the Executing Court as to why he could not deposit this amount of Rs. 12342/- in Court on the next working day. He stated that he could not deposit this amount on 20.9.1997 and 21.9.1997 as they happened to be close days for the Courts. Thereafter, he became busy on account of election duty. He deposited the amount in the Treasury on 26.9.1997. He submitted that the auctioneer appeared before the Court and made statement giving reasons why the could not deposit Rs. 12342/- in Court on the next working day and why he deposited the amount in the Treasury on 26.9.1997. He submitted that the statement of he auctioneer should have been accepted particularly when he was not cross-examined at all. He submitted that when a witness is not cross-examined by the adversary, it should be taken that he admits that part of his statement as correct. In support of this submission, he has drawn my attention to Ganpat Ram Khosla v. Kishan Lal and another, 1958 PLR 349 where it was held that "a party should put to his opponent's witnesses so much of his case as concerns that particular witness and on failure to do so, the Court will be entitled to presume that the witness's account has been accepted." He further submitted that in this case, the judgment-debtor did not appear into the witness box to controvert what the auction purchaser has stated and, therefore, whatever auction purchaser has stated that should have been accepted without any demur. Suffice it to say, it was the duty of the auction purchaser to satisfy the Court that he had complied with the mandatory provisions of Order 21 Rule 84 CPC. Order 21 Rule 84 CPC lays down as follows :-