SUMAN KUMAR Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE was a money decree dated 16-10-1982 and it was affirmed in appeal on 24-1-1986. The judgment debtors are the Gram Panchayat, Bilaspur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar and Thakur Singh, Panch, of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat. Thereafter the decree-holders approached the executing Court, and obviously when the Gram Panchayat failed to pay the decretal amount, auction of immovable property, which is a shop and is owned by the Gram Panchayat, took place. It fetched a price of Rs. 26,500/ -. The judgment debtors failed to deposit 5% of the auction money which is also a statutory requirement and Shri V. P. Bishnoi, Additional Senior Sub-Judge Jagadhri, dismissed the objections on 9-5-1988 and ordered that a sale certificate be issued in favour of the auction purchaser. Aggrieved against it, the Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal and the appellate Court set aside the impugned order holding that the Courts should have allowed the Judgment Debtors to deposit the 5% of the auction money even now. Aggrieved against it the present appeal has been preferred by the auction purchaser, Suman Kumar.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the present appellant has pointed out that though the sale was made on 30-11-1987 yet the bare decretal amount was deposited on 27-1-1988 and at that time or even till now the requirement of depositing 5% of the sale price laid down in Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has not been fulfilled at all. This question of fact has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents in this Court as well though a specific inquiry was made from him.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the auction purchaser has referred to P. K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries, A. I. R. 1990 S. C. 933, wherein it was observed that the deposit under Rule 89 is a condition precedent to the making of an application to set aside a sale. It has further been held that such period is undoubtedly 30 days. In Smt. Matrani Devi v. Chanthu Prasad, A. I. R. 1972 Patna 55. , it was observed that the J. D. , had to deposit the amount required under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure within time. The full compliance of Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been held to be mandatory in Sita Ram Bishambar Dass v. Joginder Kumar, (1963) 65 P. L. R. 638, In Muhammad Din v. Sharampat, A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 639 (2), also, it was observed that it was beyond dispute that an application under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Civil Procedure Code must be made within 30 days from the date of the sale and it has been repeatedly held that the Court has no power to extend the period of limitation. Any authority to the contrary, has not been referred to here by the learned counsel for the respondent-judgment debtor. The conclusion is that the present revision succeeds and the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge, Yammuna Nagar, dated 2-8-1991, is hereby set aside. The parties shall appear in the executing Court on 28-2-1992 for further proceedings in accordance with law.